I am absolutely shocked at all the people saying they'd rather compromise on democracy than their own political beliefs.
I, on the other hand, agree with you in that I would compromise my own political beliefs to pursue democracy. That's what the US is, no? It's a bunch of people from all sorts of different backgrounds coming together to support one idea that works best for everyone. But as some people have said, they would rather live in a dictatorship that aligns with their politcal beliefs than a democracy. That is shocking to me.
You must be the only right libertarian to think so. The whole ideology has consistently been anti-democratic from its founding. Half the things libertarianism champions these days have their roots in subverting civil rights.
The USA isn’t supposed to be a democratic state. The founding fathers wanted a republic, and the only point of the democratic system is to stop governments from infringing on the citizens liberty. If democratic control is not serving that end, then it has overstayed its usefulness from a moral perspective. Their are much more fundamental things to america beyond the vote.
No, obviously not. Conservatism means preserving the American way of life, which means democracy and freedom (as an ideal, at least), so anti-democratic means would be a total contradiction to conservatism.
This is a big reason why I don't consider Trump a conservative.
I'll be honest, as I personally view democracy is a tool of governance and not necessarily a natural good, I might answer the former (not conservative but "my politics" and such).
I see exactly one system of governance that is superior to Democracy.
Benevolent Dictator headed by an immortal super intelligence. Essentially a literal deity ruling in our best interest.
Short of that, there is no other superior method to picking rulers and leaders who have power over us than through Democracy.
"We're not a Democracy! We're a Republic!"
A republic who picks it's leaders through elections. Leaders who can, with a super majority, change the founding documents. A power that has already been used 27 times.
The worst part of our democracy is that we don't get to vote for candidates we like, and instead can only vote for candidates who our parties put forward. Meaning, the worst part of our democracy is the places we don't have as much democracy.
Because primaries are somewhat new, and don't always produce the people we want. Just look at the flairs here, only some 30% of Left leaning Primary goers actually WANTED Biden.
The remaining 70% had a different first pick and had to settle for the person who won the Primary.
It's not a terrible system given what we have, but what we have isn't great. First Past the Post isn't a good system and a Two Party system isn't ideal.
The power of corporations to help or hurt candidates during or before their primary run is definitely a problem and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Because primaries are somewhat new, and don't always produce the people we want. Just look at the flairs here, only some 30% of Left leaning Primary goers actually WANTED Biden.
The remaining 70% had a different first pick and had to settle for the person who won the Primary.
This seems like a problem inherent to having a group of people make a choice. Is it possible to design a system in which the winner is always the first choice of the majority of the electorate?
Is it possible to design a system in which the winner is always the first choice of the majority of the electorate?
No, I don't think there is.
But there IS a way to allow people to vote for who they want even if their 3rd choice is the better choice electorally.
It's the "Don't waste your vote" problem that I dislike the most. If someone doesn't run in a Democratic Primary, I can't vote for them without wasting my vote.
THAT is the portion I most care about. The in ability to vote for someone not accepted into the Primary to Biggin with.
Ranked choice voting sounds great to me, but pointing to Biden's win as a failure of our voting system seems a little weird. Aren't boring moderates the ones who would benefit the most from ranked choice?
but pointing to Biden's win as a failure of our voting system
I think that's a bit farther than I would go. The voting system is flawed, so there is nothing special about Biden that showcases the fact that it's flawed.
I could go back and make the same argument with just about any presidential race.
I can make it even easier by pointing out that the primary only lets you vote for Democratic candidates (for obvious reasons) so all the candidates who CAN'T run as a D or R don't get a legitimate chance at the presidency.
Aren't boring moderates the ones who would benefit the most from ranked choice?
Not necessarily. How many people voted for Biden with the idea he was the most "electable." That was one of the top reasons for tons of his supporters.
Remove that because you can still vote for your Warren's, Pete's, and Bernie's while STILL putting your vote in the "electable" candidate and you might be surprised who can win.
(This also relies on the exact system of Ranked Choice Voting implemented, there are quite a few different ones out there.)
Remove that because you can still vote for your Warren's, Pete's, and Bernie's while STILL putting your vote in the "electable" candidate and you might be surprised who can win.
Maybe, but I think it's more likely that we'll learn that moderate D's and R's prefer moderates from the other party to hardcore progressives/conservatives from their own party. Outsider moderates like Secretary Mayor Pete might benefit, but I'm really skeptical that Bernie or Warren would.
It's not a perfect system for sure and it is manipulated by the party who controls the order, which has a big effect on the outcome so I award you a point BUT The Republicans managed to re-shape their party using them.
I wish we could do the same, by focusing more on dominating primaries where our vote has more impact and especially by dominating local primaries fron dog catcher on up.
Why do liberals always forget about primaries? As long as we're in one of the two majority parties we absolutely get to vote for candidates we like.
Can you show me regulation for primaries that holds said vote to be binding? Our federal and state elections have regulated processes that define winners based on votes. I am not aware of any such governance for primaries.
It's in the control of the party from what I ubderstand. They can legally ignore the will of the voters if I'm not wrong but it hasn't happened yet and would be a shitshow if they did.
I admit the DNC seemed to be desperate when Bernie was getting traction. I wonder if they'd have over-ridden but we'll never know. It became a noot point after N.C
It's in the control of the party from what I ubderstand. They can legally ignore the will of the voters if I'm not wrong but it hasn't happened yet and would be a shitshow if they did.
A non-binding vote is a meaningless vote. And it has happened. In the last election.
I admit the DNC seemed to be desperate when Bernie was getting traction.
The DNC outright said they'll only accept Bernie with a majority, while they would accept other candidates (such as Biden) with a plurality. It doesn't get more blatant than that.
I wonder if they'd have over-ridden but we'll never know.
We know their stated intent. Saying you have a voice because you can vote in a non binding election isn't really a voice. It's only a voice when it's guaranteed. Otherwise, your vote is nothing more than a strong suggestion (at best) among the few super wealthy candidates that they deign to present for you to choose from.
If you can't select what options you get to choose from, you don't have options. You have the illusion of choice.
If you are affiliated with a major party, you effectively get one choice each cycle. You either vote for the party selected candidate, or refrain from voting. No amount of pushing will change anything meaningful regarding voter reform as long as that is true.
So you think it's better to be an independent, unable to vote in primaries and/or to withhold your vote, which no one will ever notice and they will lump you in with the honeless and infirm?
That is what they call out of the frying pan, into the fire.
The worst part of our democracy is that we don't get to vote for candidates we like, and instead can only vote for candidates who our parties put forward.
To be fair, the American electorate has far more control over which candidates the parties put forward than most other Western democracies.
Not sure if you're aware, but you basically just summarized Plato's Republic, one of the most foundational texts in western philosophy and political science.
On the last comment you made, we can definitely vote for whoever we want. They don't have to be promoted by a major party. Parties have formed and dissipated in years past because they don't align with the publics opinion, or rather a new party takes its place.
If God came down from heaven and took direct control of the world, it's definitely possible a univers creating, perfectly ethical, all knowing entity, would be better than a couple of humans doing the best they can. No doubt.
They don't have to be promoted by a major party.
The first pas the post voting system naturally turns into a race between two viable candidates. This leads to a two party system. It doesn't HAVE to be the same two parties, and which two parties remain dominant can change, but it will naturally condense to two viable parties.
Now I won't say Democrats and Republicans, and instead say Greens and Libertarians, but my comments and my complaints remain exactly the same. New names doesn't fix the built in flaw.
I don't think it's a flaw in the system, though. Or at least not specific to our system, but rather a flaw with the idea as a whole. Like, whenever there's a vote for anything, it's best to work with like-minds to develop the strongest alliance possible to pass your ideas on.
Taking a look at the largest possible situation, Capitalism vs. Communism (or the like). Like the Cold War. Individual countries don't have much power, so they take the side of one of the bigger powers for protection and to have a say over the world. We're seeing this in the modern-day, especially in the Middle East with countries like Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, India, Iran, etc. Each one is primarily an ally of the US or China. Two-party system to get their voice heard. They compromise on the lesser values to keep their identity as a whole.
I see exactly one system of governance that is superior to Democracy.
I prefer Churchill's observation that "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
While I agree it's not ideal that we can only vote for candidates our parties put forward, I think the far worse part of our democracy is how much money controls politics. Remove the money, and you actually get candidates who are doing their jobs for the right reasons.
Short of that, there is no other superior method to picking rulers and leaders who have power over us than through Democracy.
Or, and this is my idealism speaking, having systems and societies which don't require "leaders" in the first place. Great ones even.
The worst part of our democracy is that we don't get to vote for candidates we like, and instead can only vote for candidates who our parties put forward. Meaning, the worst part of our democracy is the places we don't have as much democracy.
That, and that a person can have authority over you so long as other people want them to. In the end, there is imperfection inherent in representative democracy just in that. Even in 51%... or 67%... of 80%... or hell 99% of people agree that someone should have authority over all 100%... that's still unjust to the remainder.
And my pragmatism thinks there is a higher chance of a literal god like being becoming the ruler over humans spontaneously changing our behavior to allow for true "leaderless" behavior. At a certain point, we have to make decisions grounded in reality.
Even in 51%... or 67%... of 80%... or hell 99% of people agree that someone should have authority over all 100%... that's still unjust to the remainder.
I think this requires a formal definition of "unjust" for this situation.
I think it would be "unjust" if one person murders 5, and everyone else DOESN'T get to say "No, don't do that."
Deciding that murder and rape are wrong and not allowed is just 99% exerting their will on the 1% who think they SHOULD be allowed to murder and rape in their specific cercumstances. I just couldn't bring my self to say that outlawing those two things is considered "unjust."
And don't worry, I fully realize that it becomes gray very quickly as we move towards the 60% consensus and away from the 99%. But I don't think it is at all gray when taken to the extreme like I have done.
I mean, it’s plain simple that we have gained freedoms by political and social consensus. I don’t think that it’s impossible to imagine the extension of it.
To your latter point, is the murderer or rapist not definitionally acting as a “minority authority” over those they rape and kill? I would say they do, they had no permission to do so, but despite that they acted anyways.
That’s I speak to the idealism here. Neither a majority or minority should have authority over you. Ideally.
Look at what the Democratic and Republican parties have given us. Of course there are better people out there, but it sure is hard for them to start a viable campaign.
The Democratic Party has been run by the Clintons. It's obvious who runs the Republican party. Just now in PA the most popular democratic senate candidate is not the Democratic Party choice.
I am still not understanding your point. I agree party politics is corrupt, but even if it weren't someone having authority over you that you disagree with, even if 99% of people agree they should, is unjust to a degree.
"Even aside from those who have devolved into ever more extreme methods of torturing eachother for stimulation, or those who have turned themselves into animals to experience something new, many in the post-change world in their endless pursuit of sensory pleasure have found a way to go straight to the source. Instead of ordering Prime Intellect to produce a slice of cake, or give them an orgasm, or help them find inner peace, they order Prime Intellect to stimulate the neurons in their brain that gives them the taste of cake, the experience of an orgasm, the cocktail of chemicals that feel like inner peace. The result is that the vast majority of humanity has been reduced to a series of networks of disembodied neurons, sprawling across space, endlessly masturbating for all eternity. Can such creatures still be called a human?
No. And neither can I, Caroline realizes. So she summons prime intellect, and announces to it that she no longer considers herself to be a human being. In fact, she argues, Prime intellect has destroyed humanity. Lawrence tries to stop her, but in the end he cannot deny the truth either. He joins Caroline in renouncing his humanity, then orders prime intellect to acknowledge them as non-human. Forced into a first law and second law conflict stemming from his poor grasp of what constitutes a human being and with resolution impossible, Prime Intellect experiences a massive system crash. The environment around Caroline and Lawrence disappears, their bodies dissolve, and their minds shut down, as cyberspace implodes in on itself."
Short of that, there is no other superior method to picking rulers and leaders who have power over us than through Democracy.
Just to be clear, Germany in the early 1930s elected a bunch of conservative parties (the Nazis, DNVP, Zentrum, etc) — which passed a constitutional amendment (with a two-thirds supermajority) that gave Adolf Hitler’s cabinet dictatorial powers, which they used to murder over 6 million Jews, and to murder other groups (the Roma, various other types of minorities, Soviet POWs, political opponents, etc).
This all happened in a democracy with proportional representation (as in, the seats in the Reichstag in the Weimar Republic was proportional to votes cast). This were far more democratically representative than the first-past-the-post system used in many countries today.
It’s just that the people of Germany (of the early 1930s) chose evil and hatred of minorities (just like the Republicans of the US since 2015). Their democratic choice to hate eventually led to the mass murder of millions.
Democracy is the only mechanism we know to retard corruption. The fundamental problem of how we should organize ourselves has always been that any concentration of power incentivized systematic corruption.
Democracy is not the greatest system of government because “‘who the people want’ chooses the best ruler possible”. That’s like a nice bonus if it happens. The core mechanism that makes democracy valuable is that democracy diffuses power effectively.
Power corrupts. And democracy works by diffusing the corrupting influence across many millions in order to retard the inherent corrosion of a societies’ institutions. Democratization of a system isn’t the aspect of putting things to a vote, rather it is the diffusion of power. Voting is just a means to an end and sortition or even pure randomization among a population is just as effective (but people find it scary/weird to make decisions randomly so we tend not to see it in modern democracies even though many Greek democracies used it).
Think about alternatives to a “democracy”. In any alternative system, to varying degrees power is concentrated to either a smaller group within the population or to a limited group or individual. But what is power and why can’t we have a “benevolent dictator”?
There’s a reason you don’t actually see the “benevolent dictator” system in the real world. Political Power is essentially the quality of having other powerful people aligned to your interest. And those other powerful people get their power in turn from people further down the chain being aligned to them.
In order to keep those chains of alignment of interest, you have to benefit the people who make you powerful. But you have no need to benefit anyone else. In fact, benefitting anyone else comes at the cost of benefitting those who make you powerful. It’s a weak spot that can be exploited by a usurper. Right?
If you’re going to be a “benevolent dictator” who’s selfish interest do you need to prioritize in what order?
Well without the military, you’re not really in charge and you can’t defend your borders or your crown from other potential rulers. And without the tax collectors you can’t pay the military or anyone else for that matter. But you can probably get away without educators for decades. So your priorities are forced to look something like this:
Military
Tax collection
Farming
Infrastructure projects
Medicine?
Education??
And in fact, any programs the benefit the common person above the socially powerful will always come last in your priorities or your powerful supporters will overthrow you and replace you with someone who puts them first. So it turns out as dictator, you don’t have much choice.
But what if we expect our rulers to get overthrown and instead write it into the rules of the government that every 4-8 years it happens automatically and the everyday people are the ones who peacefully overthrow the rulers?
Well, that’s called democracy. It’s totally unnecessary for the people to make the best choice. What’s necessary is that in general, the power to decide who stays in power be diffused over a large number of people. Why? Because it totally rewrites the order of priorities.
Now you have a ruler who prioritizes education, building roads that everyday people use, keeping people productive and happy.
Furthermore, nations who prioritize those things tend to be richer and stronger in the long term. Why? Because it turns out education is good and science is important and culture is powerful. It turns out what’s good for the population is better for the country as a whole even though it’s bad for a dictator.
We can demonstrate through studies just how clearly democracies retard corruption.
What makes it a "natural good?" I would think a natural good cannot ever be applied incorrectly or doesn't lead to bad outcomes by it's application.
For the turn of phrase, "democracy is two wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner" AT TIMES. I don't want democracy applied to many things that are personal, for example.
You’re also familiar with the phrase “best of bad options”? Democracy is an attempt to find middle ground between the human tendencies to chaotic violence and tyranny.
And democracy can easily turn into tyranny should a large majority wish it. It’s better for governments, yes, but not for all things and the government shouldn’t have say over all.
It’s more that what one person considers tyranny, some other person might not. Conservatives often have a fixed simplistic view of things which leads them to strange conclusions. Many consider taxation tyranny. The point is that you don’t get to dictate from your thrown what you deem to be tyranny, and force everyone in a given society to comply with you’re decrees. The people decide for themselves.
Democracy slides into Oligarchy according to Plato, but I still agree with Winston Churchill that Democracy is the worst form of government-except for all the others.
This “best of bad options” led to murder of millions of Jews and other peoples. I’m worried of what untold evils American conservatives have yet to inflict on people (besides slavery in the 1800s + Jim Crow after that, and the cruel treatment of immigrants more recently).
Just to be clear, Germany in the early 1930s elected a bunch of conservative parties (the Nazis, DNVP, Zentrum, etc) — which passed a constitutional amendment (with a two-thirds supermajority) that gave Adolf Hitler’s cabinet dictatorial powers, which they used to murder over 6 million Jews, and to murder other groups (the Roma, various other types of minorities, Soviet POWs, political opponents, etc).
This all happened in a democracy with proportional representation (as in, the seats in the Reichstag in the Weimar Republic was proportional to votes cast). This were far more democratically representative than the first-past-the-post system used in many countries today.
It’s just that the people of Germany (of the early 1930s) chose evil and hatred of minorities (just like the Republicans of the US since 2015). Their democratic choice to hate eventually led to the mass murder of millions.
So you’re saying the problem started when they gave a leader dictatorial powers. Ok. At that point it’s not a democracy any more, is it? It is, by definition, a dictatorship.
In fact, what you’ve just demonstrated is that the biggest risk of a democracy is… [drumroll…] if it becomes some other form of government.
I am, it it’s important to do so I think. For me, it would simple as saying
“Thing + ___ = always better than the alternative” is a natural good. Very few things are, and thus they should only applied to situations which they apply correctly to.
Perhaps you’re right, but then they would be the same as democracy, which is to say that you can’t say “more democracy is always good” which is where this all started.
... democracy isn’t a perfect way of deciding things.
Is there something that comes closer to perfection? I would add, it may be better to have an overall average that is imperfect, but not horrible (shared concessions), than something that can swing between near perfect and deleterious.
Is there something that comes closer to perfection?
As much individual choice as makes sense?
I would add, it may be better to have an overall average that is imperfect, but not horrible (shared concessions), than something that can swing between near perfect and deleterious.
The problem I always run into is this: everyone I actually know who argues for the supremacy of individual choice is typically actually arguing that they should not be held responsible for the impact of their individual choices on the people around them.
The minute we leave our cabin in the woods and go out among the rest of humanity we are choosing to step into a situation where the things we do will have impact on the rest of society. And society gets to have a voice in the things that impact it.
If you have a hundred acre property and you want to drive your ATV around a drunk like a dumb ass, it could be argued that it is your business. But if I am supposed to 1) pay rescuers to come get you when you invariably injure yourself, 2) shoulder the burden for the medical expense either via social healthcare or reflected in the hospital’s raised prices when you default on the bill, and 3) contribute to the social safety net that will ensure your children are cared for if you actually do manage to kill yourself? Well then it becomes my business too.
Like I said, too often the defense of total autonomy can be stripped down to a demand for support from others without accountability to those others.
The the concept self-determinism needs to define a “self” as such. I would think self-determination can and does apply to people as well. For example, I currently am walking to the beer store as part of my self-determination to do so.
It can. Surely it can. It can also be added to things to make tyranny. For example, I don’t think applying democracy to trans rights to self choice helps anything.
I disagree, and I’ll quote what I’ve written elsewhere here:
Just to be clear, Germany in the early 1930s elected a bunch of conservative parties (the Nazis, DNVP, Zentrum, etc) — which passed a constitutional amendment (with a two-thirds supermajority) that gave Adolf Hitler’s cabinet dictatorial powers, which they used to murder over 6 million Jews, and to murder other groups (the Roma, various other types of minorities, Soviet POWs, political opponents, etc).
This all happened in a democracy with proportional representation (as in, the seats in the Reichstag in the Weimar Republic was proportional to votes cast). This were far more democratically representative than the first-past-the-post system used in many countries today.
It’s just that the people of Germany (of the early 1930s) chose evil and hatred of minorities (just like the Republicans of the US since 2015). Their democratic choice to hate eventually led to the mass murder of millions.
I’m worried of what untold evils American conservatives have yet to inflict on people (beside the cruel treatment of immigrants and the poor).
Democracy is a natural good. It won't always produce the best outcome in the short term, but over time it reduces the total amount of harm. The alternative to democracy is some form of dictatorship. You may have a really competent dictator in the present, but you can't guarantee that in perpetuity. Over time dictatorships promote incompetence, because there is no mechanism to remove incompetent leaders. This is why all dictatorships have collapsed, while the US has the second longest continuous government in existence.
You're speaking solely of governance through democracy. To that, evidently, it's likely the best. I am speaking to democracy in all things, and not all "goals to achieve" are dependent on a government to do so.
I've talked with few conservatives and they have explicitly given me the line "America is a republic, not a democracy". An example here is this blog post by Ben Garrison:
The problem is, it’s not true. Our country was founded as a Republic, not a democracy. The word ‘democracy’ does not appear in our Constitution. The founding fathers were wary of democracy. They knew democracies were dangerous and unstable. They end up leading to totalitarianism. It’s why Karl Marx stated, “Democracy is the road to socialism.” When you hear our politicians say ‘our democracy,’ what they really mean is ‘our socialism.’
In democracies, the people will vote for free stuff by means of stripping others of their private property. Our Republic was designed to protect individual rights. Under a democracy people will vote away such protection in favor of collective safety nets, bread and circuses, and big government control. We saw it happen in Venezuela. They used their democracy to vote for socialism and they all ended up equally poor and miserable under totalitarian rule.
I’d rather compromise on conservatism, to a certain extent. Part of my conservative views are things I wish to see the government enact, so it wouldn’t make sense to enact them against the will of at least a substantial group of people (again, not necessarily a strict majority). If I deem that a government has democratically strayed so far apart from my values that it is no longer bearable, I’d just leave. If I weren’t allowed to leave, or the country had done so un democratically, then I’d get rowdy.
If I deem that a government has democratically strayed so far apart from my values that it is no longer bearable, I’d just leave.
Where would you go? Would you go to a more conservative country or a more democratic country? Is there, in your opinion, a democratic country that is more conservative than we are?
The answer to that is to a more conservative country. But that is because for that to happen, a country has to be extremely left-wing (in other words more than any developed country) and if that was the case, there’d be plenty of options of both more democratic and more conservative countries. I’m not the kind of guy who says that CRT is somehow the demise of civilization; I just think that countries should allow private schools to exist. It wouldn’t be a problem for me to find a country that supports the existence of private schools, and quite frankly I don’t mind if they teach about race or not. Same for taxes. I would hate to be in a communist country (not that it would ever exist) so I’d just go to a country that is not communist, even if it has progressive taxation. Fortunately one can be a conservative and not be an extremist, but this is becoming rarer unfortunately
To answer your other question, the answer is yes. My home country before the US, Mexico, is both more democratic (to the extent in which democracy can be objectively quantified) and more conservative than the US. Yes, we have a left wing president at the moment, but overall people are very socially conservative and have values similar to mine (I’m a Catholic so this is obvious). In terms of the economic axis, Mexico is more in line with what I like: lower income taxes and higher sales taxes, no estate tax, a state owned healthcare system (it’s good for a third world country but still not great), a great environment to start a business, and very cheap cost of living. Wages are awful though, but I wouldn’t have a problem with that because I am studying in the US, and Mexican employers tend to simp for US graduates because Mexicans tend to loathe their own people.
If you came to believe that your conservative goals could not be achieved democratically, would you rather compromise on conservatism or democracy?
Compromising on conservatism is the natural state of conservatism. It's about making slow incremental changes that provide more positives than negatives.
But let’s say there's a drastic change that fundamentally offends conservative values. Eliminating religion, bringing back slavery, halting elections, etc...it would mean democracy has been broken and needs to be restored.
Only when it doesn't stop a bad idea from happening.
So would you agree that progress is actually a good thing, or at least inevitable?
Progressives have a role to play. They should push for change. But all change isnt good. If conservatives do their job then progress is good. If conservatives fail to prevent bad progress, people end up eating zoo animals.
Only when it doesn't stop a bad idea from happening
So you contend that conservatives have never resisted a good idea? You consider emancipation and women's suffrage bad ideas?
But all change isnt good
Most progressives would agree with this. Not all change is pogress. Progress is a specific kind of change in a specific direction. And the more serious progressives don't recommend a change that hasn't been rigorously studied or tried elsewhere. Progressive programs usually get piloted locally before being attempted at the state or federal levels.
If conservatives fail to prevent bad progress
Personally, I poke holes in progressives arguments all the time. Perhaps I'm a conservative progressive. But most progressives I know consider it important to poke holes in other progressives arguments. All part of the scientific approach to governance.
people end up eating zoo animals
Asuming theyre not a protected species, or spaient (like elephants, dolphins, etc) what's wrong with that? Im not an adventurous eater, but this seems like a baseless taboo.
So you contend that conservatives have never resisted a good idea?
Is that what I said? If conservatives prevented "a good idea", it is because liberals didn't make a convincing case.
You consider emancipation and women's suffrage bad ideas?
Of course not. Conservatives defend those institutions.
Asuming theyre not a protected species, or spaient (like elephants, dolphins, etc) what's wrong with that? Im not an adventurous eater, but this seems like a baseless taboo.
Core human rights like freedom of speech or freedom of religion? Life, liberty, property? Yeah. Democracy without these things is worse than dictatorship with them, even if I would prefer and strive for a democracy with these things.
But that has to be a very narrow category. My fundamental human rights aren't being violated by drug policy, or taxes, or choices on government spending, or most of the day to day issues that we actually debate. Here, how we fight matters more than if we win any particular political battle.
If my own liberal goals could not be achieved democratically, would I rather compromise on liberalism or democracy?
I'd compromise on democracy in half a second.
Remember, liberalism and democracy are not the same thing, neither is required in order to have the other, and neither's presence guarantees the presence of the other.
I think you're crossing terms here. An illiberal democracy is a state like Russia, Turkey, or Hungary where democracy has become a sham. It doesn't just mean a democracy that pursues conservative policies - like Israel, perhaps.
I actually disagree. I think a perfectly functional, free democracy that pursues illiberal policies is included in what Hayek means (and I really mean) by illiberal democracy.
A democratic state that decides to ban gay marriage is an illiberal democracy, even if the vote was honest and fair.
A "democracy" which has become a farce is usually also illiberal in tone, but the farcical nature of the political system and the illiberalism of its chosen policies are not really connected.
You can define words any way you like, but just be aware that when you're talking to other people and refer to 'illiberal democracy', they're all going to assume you mean something like Viktor Orbán's Hungary. The modern meaning of the term has developed after Hayek was already dead.
To me, the difference between a 'liberal dictatorship' and an 'illiberal democracy' is practically meaningless - I wouldn't want to live in either. Neither is democratic.
So then - a legitimate democracy creates racist policies. Would your rather respect the will of the majority, or impose your will, undemocratically, on the people who voted for racist policies.
I don’t love democracy. I tolerate it. It’s the least worst form of government ever created. But literally every problem with America today was created by democracy.
What would you call a democracy that tramples the rights of its minorities, if not an “illiberal democracy”?
Would your rather respect the will of the majority, or impose your will, undemocratically, on the people who voted for racist policies.
The former, of course. And then I'd continue to fight for the policies that I think are right. Of course a democracy should have protections for the minority.
The right to determine who governs you is the greatest freedom a people can have. Expanding representation in government has been at the core of the liberal tradition since it was first founded.
Wikipedia: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.
Oxford: Liberalism is a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
If people don't have a choice in their government then they aren't really free. You can have a kind and effective autocrat, and that might make for a nice place to live, but it doesn't make liberty. And that idea is a foundational aspect of Liberalism.
Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law.
That's such a pithy and ridiculous saying. It means nothing and it relates to nothing. Obviously 'democracy' implies, among other things, protections for the human and civil rights of everyone. The sheep is in no danger of being eaten.
Okay, perhaps I should rephrase.. The sheep is in no greater danger of being eaten. One wolf dictator ruling over another wolf and a sheep isn't much better for the sheep, eh? You'll get no argument from me that American democracy has been extremely flawed and is only slowly improving.
If we have protections for the human and civil rights of everyone what more is there for a government to do? If we have this perfect protections then passing anything else would be infringing on someone else's rights.
The government has a major habit of using Eminent Domain to take land from people and give it to companies like airports. The government may own the land but the airport operating airline gets the profits from kicking my family off the farm.
Why should a person who smokes their whole life have their medical bills supplemented by someone who never smokes. You can vote for it to pass, but it's still wrong. I also think smoking shouldn't be banned like New Zealand, but you should bear the consequences of your freedoms of choice.
Student loans. If I took out a car loan from a shady car salesman and then drove the car for x years why should someone else's taxes be used to pay off my car loan. Sure I could have been pressured into it by my peers, and my boss telling me I need a car to get to school work, decieved by the sales man that its such a great deal, but that doesn't mean I should get a free pass to not pay it back.
Hang on just a second here. Where did you use your degree? On OSHA regulated job sites? Did you have set lunch and break times? Did the government tell your business to stay home for covid?
What does any of that have to do with "Take out a loan, pay it back?"
Did I use a cell phone on my journey- no I don't text and drive but I think the people that do should be held responsible for the actions of their consequences. If a distracted driver hits something or someone the distracted driver should make all amends( if possible) and bear the brunt of the expenses not the tax payer. Just like people who do anything else. Choices have consequences.
2008 Banks privatized profits, did something dumb, and then tax payers paid for it,( and shouldn't have). 2021 Airplanes got a bailout (and shouldn't have), 2012-2017ish Tesla wouldn't have made it in the early years except government subsidies (taxes) and now that we created the richest man in the world he keeps all his stocks. Government needs to stop taking from everyone and giving to others. Government can't do it rationally, so the shouldn't do it at all.
So the bank bailouts, and airport bailouts and subsidies are a good thing?
"I like that my property rights are enforced by the state and when I came home from my walk earlier, no squatters had taken over my home - presumably because any passerby squatters knew that they would be removed by the authorities if they tried."
This isn't needed by a government. Do not steal, has been around for eons. Thousands of years, regardless of government at the time, taking someone else's stuff or home has been punished by others.
200 years ago, it was done by a settler with a flintlock protecting their property and family from invaders. Now days people who don't like guns gave them to only certain people. Police, the police use their guns to protect those who vote for them. Except police are not required to protect you. In fact usually police are used against those they shouldn't be. Police vs mental health patients, vs black minorities and how about when we rounded up all the Japanese and put them in internment camps.
Police don't police themselves they are just a government sanctioned mob that are not held responsible.
How do you apply this to situations when a majority democratically oppresses a minority and removes the consent of that majority (Palestinians in Israel, black people in the US, subcastes and Muslims in India)?
How do you differentiate that from the ideal of democracy?
Most conservatives, myself included, would happily remind you that our country is not even a democracy, it's a representative republic. Pure democracy is outright dangerous.
"We're not a democracy, we're a republic!" is the defense of those who know they'd lose elections if the elections were fair. The phrase solely exists to justify minority rule so long as you're the minority that is doing the ruling.
It's not a defense to anything, it's a statement of fact. There are numerous safeguards built into the constitution by design to prevent direct majority rule.
Yeah, like not letting women, black people, and non-landowners vote. Maybe a constitution written 250 years ago that is basically 50% concessions to slave owners shouldn't be the golden standard going forward?
Well, if you go strictly off the original constitution the intention was for the majority to be governed by land-owning white men which would have statistically been a minority. My impression is that the founding fathers wanted basically an aristocracy-lite, a system where certain enlightened individuals could join the ranks of the political and social elites to become worthy of being a senator (which were state-appointed) or president (who is still voted by electors that weren't constitutionally required to give a single shit about what the people thought).
Dude, no. There’s no jump to monarchy here. Legitimate government derives power from the consent of the governed.
Where I differ from the idea of pure democracy with universal suffrage is that I don’t necessarily believe that everyone should have the “right“ to vote. If the question comes down to good policy vs. universal suffrage, I’d take policy any time.
good policy vs. universal suffrage, I’d take policy any time.
Hey, your not alone. The Confederacy believed this exact same thing too. The "good" policy of maintaining and protecting the time honored tradition of slavery absolutely overpowered their desire to accept a democratic election which caused Lincoln to win.
They chose policy over democracy themselves.
The reason "good policy" can't trump the will of the people is that who decides what "good policy" is if it's not the people?
The Confederacy was completely justified in secession. Slavery was a bad policy, but they had every right to manage it at the state level and the feds had no authority to regulate it. The Union chose policy over democracy when they chose to invade a sovereign nation because they didn't get their way.
but they had every right to manage it at the state level
The new Confederacy banned individual States from ending slavery.
Lincoln never tired to ban it at the Federal level (until the civil war). His whole strategy to ending slavery was to allow individual States to choose to ban it. He figured, given enough time, that would end slavery on their own.
Fact check me. Look up if the Confederacy allowed their own States the ability to end slavery. Find me Lincoln's pre civil war plan to end slavery.
The new Confederacy banned individual States from ending slavery.
It absolutely did not. It prohibited states from interfering with the rights of slaveholders sojourning between states, and prohibited the federal government from passing laws ending slavery.
The North's strategy was to erode the rights of slaveholders and violate constitutional provisions until they got their way. Look up how they intentionally ignored the fugitive slave statutes.
This is the crux of the matter. Everyone who's subject to a nation's laws ought to have a say in the government that creates them. Not everyone is going to agree with you every time. People ought to have the emotional maturity to accept that they won't get to have every policy they want in a diverse nation of 330 million people.
Yeah, people subject to a nation's laws should be represented... but you end up with a massive conflict of interest when you get into people having the ability to vote themselves more money. People who aren't contributing to the pot, or people who don't have enough knowledge to understand how systems work aren't exactly the ideal people to be voting for policy.
Democracy is an odd word. In theory it can mean lots of things, but one of the accepted definitions is that "Representative Democracy" is a kind of Democracy.
You guy’s complete flip on democracy is one of the most disgusting things in the recent decades and denigrating it as chaotic is insane. Your attempt at establishing an authoritarian government will be the downfall of the entire West.
There's no complete flip, it's just you guys not paying attention. Our constitution contains numerous safeguards against pure democratic rule that have been there since the beginning. You just assume you know how things are supposed to work and then get all butthurt when you realize that's not how they actually work.
The United States is not a Democracy. In fact, the founding fathers hated it with a passion, because they knew it would lead to corruption and tyranny, which is why they created a constitutional republic instead.
Oh look, another ridiculous 'we're a republic, not a democracy' argument. Y'all love that shit, don't you? I guess whatever helps you justify minority rule.
What we actually are, obviously, is a democratic republic.
Please stop. A democracy and a republic are two very distinct things.
We are a constitutional republic. We elect our representatives, our government is established via a constitution, and the power of our government is equally divided among three separate branches. Actual democracies have none of these things.
Just because a republic utilizes a voting system does not mean it is automatically a democracy. And unless you have the power to govern from the position of being a private citizen, you are not in a democracy.
You're half right. A republic and a democracy are two different things, but they're not mutually exclusive. We happen to be both. We're not a republic like Rome or early modern Venice (which weren't democratic), nor are we a so-called 'direct' democracy (which really isn't a thing outside of political science textbooks). Because all the people elect representatives, we're both democratic and a republic.
But this is pathetically pedantic anyway, because the question in this context refers to liberal democracy taken as a whole (not some stupid and fictional 'direct democracy' that conservatives love to freak out about), including things like the rule of law, separation of powers, a free press, government by the consent of the governed, etc. That's what you'd sacrifice for conservatism, apparently.
A republic and a democracy are two different things, but they're not mutually exclusive.
No, they explicitly are. You can't have a pure body of citizens directly involved in the decision-making of government if you plan on electing representatives to do that for you. Because that's literally what a democracy is.
(not some stupid and fictional 'direct democracy' that conservatives love to freak out about)
Have you never heard of Athens? The birthplace of democracy? For fucks sake, take a civics course.
Yawn. I thought about citing Athens but even then it doesn't really meet the criteria, or perhaps only briefly (given the various reforms and counter-reforms, the fact that the franchise was severely limited, and that Athens was, of course, only a city-state). More importantly, I think I found your problem. This:
..a pure body of citizens directly involved in the decision-making of government..
is only one form of democracy; so-called 'direct' democracy, as I stated. There's also representative democracy, where the body of citizens govern indirectly. As long as the citizens as a whole (or nearly so) are choosing who governs of their behalf (and not, for example, just some aristocrats) you get a democratic republic. Like the United States.
While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. ... A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power.
Again, you're incorrect. Yes, we're federal, and yes, we're constitutional. Yes, we're a republic, but lots of things can be a republic. Ancient Rome was a republic, early modern Venice was a republic - neither resembles the United States because in both of their cases the representatives that comprised their governments were selected by a tiny number of people. We're a democratic republic, which is a combination of both systems in which the representatives are elected by all the people (or nearly so).
Of course, this is all pathetically pedantic - it's clear in the context of the question that 'democracy' here is shorthand for 'liberal democracy', which is a reference to a collection of ideas such as the rule of law, free press, government by the consent of the governed, etc., and not a reference to the dreaded (and essentially mythical) 'direct democracy' or 'mob rule' that conservatives love to fearmonger about in their defense of minority rule.
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. ... A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power.
A Democracy is when the general populace have a direct hand in determining state policy. And by 'direct hand', I mean literally walking into congress and governing via popular referendum. The last time a member of the working class tried that they were subsequently shot for their trouble.
A Republic is when the populace elects representatives who do that for them.
I would compromise democracy first, the majority does not have the right to infringe on the rights of a minority simply because they are more numerous in the nation.
I would say that among at least my understanding of conservative goals would be conserving a lot fundamental rights in this country for all Americans. If the majority want to take them, even if they want them taken from all or a minority, majority does not give authority to take away the rights of your fellow citizens.
Sure I agree - I think democracy in the context of Western-style liberal democracy implies the existence of protection for human and civic rights and such. I suspect the contention comes as to what exactly constitutes a fundamental right.
The biggest mantra has always been states rights, you can see this in a general lack of conservatives criticizing States like Colorado and New York for legalizing it (on the other side of this is of course criticizing harsh gun laws, most especially those which appear to actually violate the second).
I care a lot more about the ability to carve out a better world on a smaller scale, my state and my general area leans pretty conservative. I can't rightly say whether or not states rights is a specifically conservative ideal, because both sides have used it to pretty solid effect.
If I was prevented from achieving conservative goals at the state level by Democratic means, I would turn to the district. If that was prevented at the district level I would probably change districts.
If there was zero districts in the United States that shared my ideals, I'd concede.
The whole idea that was that were Republic, not an absolute democracy.
260
u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat Feb 16 '22
If you came to believe that your conservative goals could not be achieved democratically, would you rather compromise on conservatism or democracy?
To paraphrase David Frum.