Is democracy a tool or a goal unto itself?
If it is some sort of goal we reach toward, why should we be reaching for it?
If it's merely a tool (I think it is), what truly is the goal?
If it's merely a tool (I think it is), what truly is the goal?
Comments (71)
Honestly, by far the best option would be government by a group of disinterested but enlightened geniuses to whom we could willingly cede complete authority in the sound knowledge they know best and would always act for the common good. Plato's philosopher-kings. The problem is, it's an impossible dream, so we're just going to have to try and get along with democracy.
In "Politics and the English language", George Orwell points out that the term "democracy" resists being given a definition. Therefore, it is a member of the class of "meaningless words".
The only purpose of meaningless words is to praise or to black mouth.
"Democracy" is supposedly "good" while "terrorism" is supposedly evil. These terms do not mean anything else but good and evil in the opinion of the person using these words, in reference to an unspecified and undocumented system of fake morality.
It is a conjectural belief that democracy would be a viable political system. I strongly suspect that it isn't.
As far as I am concerned, it leads to the most intrusive kind of government known to mankind, only surpassed by soviet communism in terms of loss of freedom and self-destructiveness.
Counter question: compared to what?
Pretty much all other options could survive on the long run. So-called democracy can clearly not, as it brings down fertility rates to zero, and eliminates the very society that it is supposed to govern. In that sense, it is not the least worst, but simply the worst option. Only Soviet communism was possibly even worse, but even that is debatable. Furthermore, we will never know, because Soviet communism has imploded already while so-called democracy is still in its very last lap.
Isn't it segregating in a sense?
In an 'every man for himself' sense - where there's quorum rather than consensus.
But maybe that's the semblance of the current capitalistic democracy, in which case what would merely democracy be?
The question is, WHAT ARE THEY? Name one, or more. And then we'll vote. Oh - hang on.....
In a so-called democracy, the option exists to invent new laws that will make the survival of society itself, impossible. You would think that they would not do a thing like that, but they really do. It is perfectly possible to manipulate the populace into approving self-destructive laws and policies.
Therefore, rule number one:
Never ask the populace (of mere idiots) how to govern the country. Just govern it.
For example, they kicked out the so-called "democratic" government in Thailand and replaced it by a military junta. I can only approve of that. The "democratic" predecessor was busy manipulating the populace into approving principles that would simply destroy that very populace. You would think that the populace would not do a stupid thing like that? Sorry, they always do. Welcome to the real world.
George should have known better. 'Heap' resists being given a definition. But what has become clear of late is that democracy cannot be identical with 'the will of the majority', for the simple reason that the will of the majority is as a matter of course often contradictory and thus cannot by any means be implemented. Accordingly, one needs an interpretive layer, such as 'representatives' to examine the will of the people and make as much sense of it as may be, and implement that. And that implies a constitution and that implies the rule of law and a judiciary, and so on. Jeez, un, life is complicated!
No, sorry, don't even implement that!
It will become a tool for the populace (of mere idiots) to destroy themselves.
Society is not viable like that.
To illustrate, freedomness to freedom is like poisonous mushrooms to edible ones.
A lookalike that preys on the inexperienced and unattentive.
Democracy being moreso bureaucratic than practical makes it freedomness, in my experience.
Addendum: For instance you have the rights to education and work - but that leaves out a lot of context.
Until recently practical skills were overlooked in favour of a degree.
And despite having an 'education', rather a degree - doesn't mean you're educated.
Most such rights are just filler.
Like the word 'populism'.
When does a {hospital} work properly?
When we get the guarantee that the ignorant idiots of the populace won't have a say whatsoever in making {medical} decisions concerning others. Only the cognoscenti will be involved in figuring that out.
When does a {garage} work properly?
When we get the guarantee that the ignorant idiots of the populace won't have a say whatsoever in making decisions concerning {car-repairs on the cars} of others. Only the cognoscenti will be involved in figuring that out.
So, all throughout society we enforce the following principle:
[b]When does {X} work properly?
When we get the guarantee that the ignorant idiots of the populace won't have a say whatsoever in making decisions concerning the {X} of other people. Only the cognoscenti will be involved in figuring that out.[/b]
In a so-called "democracy", an exception is made when {X} concerns {X}="how to govern the country". That is a glaring and fundamental mistake. There should be no exception whatsoever, because it is exactly that exception that will start destroying every possible other {X}.
Am I right that you think of democracy as a tool rather than a goal in and of itself?
My suspicions about politics have thus been confirmed!
:up:
There's nothing to say that humanity is viable in any configuration. But I am implementing nothing, but describing the sort of arrangement that is generally called 'democratic' which is viable enough in the short term to be extant in many institutions.
That option exists in every government that is run by people. Historically, plenty of societies made decisions that ended up being severely detrimental to them. The vast majority of those were not democracies.
Quoting frank
Can your question be reformulated as: Is democracy a tool to arrive at correct/rational/just laws or are correct/rational/just laws those laws which have been passed by a democracy?
I think It's both. For general principles, democracy is a tool to establish those principles as best as posisble. The correct principles being determined by philosophy/rationality. But, when we get to the details of exactly how to implement these principles, democracy is an end in and of itself, as it is up to the people being governed to decide these details.
Oddly, I'd say the exact opposite, so I'd be interested in your reasoning.
I don't think it's possible derive principles "correctly" as I can't think of a fixed measure by which such a judgement could be made.
I do think, though, that having established the principle one is trying to achieve, there are more or less objective facts about which strategy will or will not achieve them. The fixed measure being controlled experiments on all or part of said strategies.
1. People are evaluated and a job is selected for them - this is old enforced socialism
2. People willingly work what they're best at for the benefit of the community - i.e natural communism.
But you can't have 2 without abolishing money.
What I am thinking of when I refer to principles is things like the rule of law, fundamental human, political and social rights. Those are things that are not subject to negotiation.
On the other hand, while we may all agree that we should make automobile traffic as safe as possible, there is a point at which the costs of additional safety will outweigh the benefits. Where exactly that point is cannot be practically determined by argument alone. It's a question that should be decided by vote.
I'd simply allow people to work whatever jobs they want to work, with there being no barrier to them being able to work those jobs. Of course, they'd need to be trained, but that would be provided.
So by what measure are they correct then, if not democratic agreement?
Quoting Echarmion
I'm not seeing the difference at all. If we were to agree on the relative value of the competing harms (say loss of money vs risk to life) then it would absolutely be an empirical matter to determine which strategy yielded the most gain in one for the least loss in the other.
I personally don't agree that we can rationally work out the relative values, but that's the bit you seem sure we can, so I'm failing to see why it isn't just a matter of empirical fact which strategy is best from there on.
For example, the UK government has asked the Bank of England to set interest rates. Having determined that economic growth is an objective, the strategy for achieving it (with regard to interest rates) is just a matter of economic theory, best left to experts in the field.
Anyone can work as a musician or writer, and even if they're good they can't guarantee profit.
If you want the public to tip you, you need to please them - and sometimes, if not most times, that means doing something other than what you want.
And while individuals strain themselves, corporations are largely exempt - treating people like cattle.
So you either enforce order or remove the middle man.
If you wanted to work as an actor this year, an airline pilot next year, a marine biology researcher the following year, etc. that's not really possible with the way things are set up.
You can work towards those things, but you might not be able to get the opportunities, you might not be able to afford the schooling required, you might not be able to support yourself while pursuing various things, you can't just on a whim decide that you want to do something and begin to do it (at least as an apprentice).
I'd set things up so that you can do the job you want to do, on whatever hours you want to do it, with whatever time off, simply because that's what you want to do. That might not guarantee access to scarcer resources--that might require pursuit of particular work, at particular hours, etc., but you'd be able to do whatever work you want to do, changing as often as you like, etc.
Totally agreed.
In my experience, countries that are NOT democracies perform much better in that respect. No matter what other stupid laws they usually have on the books, democracies always end up revolving around handouts, freebies, and envy politics.
The best example of a "true democracy" is Venezuela.
The populace started yelling that the price of bread was too high? No problem. Just set the price firmly below the production cost. Now they are complaining that nobody produces bread anymore and that the supermarket shelves are empty.
Of course, Venezuelans still consistently refuse to acknowledge any link between their own political demands and their own misery. It is not their fault at all! Unfortunately, it is not Chavez' fault (or now Maduro's) either because they only did what that the populace of complete idiots demanded from their government, which literally delivered the laws that these retards asked for.
Furthermore, even if the supermarket shelves became stocked again, they wouldn't be able to buy anything there with their worthless Bolivar currency. The Venezuelan government just kept printing money to pay for handouts and freebies, while it is "the rich capitalists" who were running the erstwhile bakeries who should pay for the handouts and freebies !!!
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does not only sound like Chavez. She really is like him. You see the same kind of people showing up everywhere in these so-called "democracies". What a joke!
I think you're seeing justice as the purpose of government (or at least part of the purpose?) That's a fascinating perspective and it's a little alien to me. Like Lincoln, I think injustice is just part of life. He believed that democracy is a tool to nurture a kind of awakening to human potential.
More later. As always, nice talking with you.
And there it is - the problem is funding, in other words money.
On a side note: I'm self-sufficient, currently working ten different things at once - so it technically is possible to do what you said, albeit rarely.
Reason, for example. I see that this is not your position, but you're certainly aware that plenty of philosophers argued that there are truths about law, morality etc.
I don't think this is the thread to go into detail on that argument though.
Quoting Isaac
But we'd still need a value judgement to determine how much loss of money equals how much risk to life.
Quoting Isaac
Well, I believe that human minds are similar enough to work some things out rationally. I don't believe that rationality is precise enough to offer answers to all legal value judgements, at least not given current cognitive capacities.
And there are questions which seem to have no connection to rationality at all, like which side of the road to drive on. Questions of organisation, essentially.
Quoting frank
I think you could call it "Justice", yes. The purpose of the government is to create a "state of justice", which allows individuals to practice their freedom, which could also be described as awakening their potential.
But my background is in law, which might bias my thinking.
It's just that I know a lot of people who would laugh in my face if I told them the government is supposed to secure justice. They would say that it probably does if you're rich. But if you're really rich, you can buy favorable injustice.
How do you view this? If a democracy is supposed to have the goal of establishing justice, where does it go wrong?
So you're probably right about this not being the place to re-hash the moral relativism argument, but the above is the interesting part with regard to this thread. Why are you drawing a limit to rationality? Whatever it is (which I obviously don't agree with) that you think rationality can use to determine values, why does it suddenly go away when determining something like the above.
Is it to do with...
Quoting Echarmion
...? If so, then how are you judging where rationality becomes too imprecise. I always considered rationality to be best in precise situations and worse when applied to too large a scale (too many factors to be reasonably considered). You seem to be saying the opposite? That when it comes to really broad matters like human rights we can rationally determine the way forward, but for something precise like the relative value of risk to life vs loss of property, its becomes useless.
Perhaps without revisiting the moral relativism argument, you could put a bit more detail on how you think preciseness affects rationality?
If we look at the working of the judiciary specifically, I don't think whether or not verdicts are just is strongly connected to democracy as such. It's more a question of the self-image and self-policing of the judiciary.
If we look at legislative question, I think the answer is broadly that a democracy is always in tension with non-democratic sources of power. If you think about it, militaries technically have the ability to impose their will on the civilian government pretty much everywhere. That they don't exercise this power is mostly down to, again, self-image. Most generals in, say, the US military wouldn't dream of launching a military coup, and they know that if they did, they cannot rely on their officers and soldiers following orders.
Comparable "taboos" don't exist with regards to economic power, so the holders of economic power are much less constrained in using it for their benefit. Democracies nevertheless have the advantage that it is much harder to ignore the interests in of the population at large compared to other systems. Even the most despotic ruler will be overthrown eventually, but being able to vote means the government needs to be a lot more sensitive to public opinion. If the population has a strong sense solidarity, this means that all interests will end up being somewhat protected.
Quoting Isaac
What I mean is more like "grey areas". Rationality doesn't go away, but there is a difference between those rules that are necessary for "just" society and those rules which can be decided either way. Essentially, there are two layers of normative questions: There are personal morals, which affect every single decision, though it's not necessarily always possible to compute the answer. And then there is social morals, or law, which only compirses those rules which are indispensable to protect people's ability to follow their personal morals.
Quoting Isaac
Not exactly, but I realize I am not being terribly clear hear, and I may also be contradicting myself occaisonally. These are rough ideas that I have that I need to think about, or discuss, more. You are right that "large scale" problems are more difficult to think through, but they also allow more abstraction. It's relatively easy to argue that we should respect all beings who appear to be sentient in a way comparable to humans. We don't need to bother with the peculiarities of the beings, since reciprocal respect seems the best approach either way.
But when we get to more peculiar questions like what this means for the distribution of wealth an resources, it gets a lot more complicated, and our argumentative chains get longer and longer. This may be related to whether or not you approach this topic "top down" or "bottom up", that is whether you start with a social or an individualistic approach.
Right. I'd restructure things so that they're not based on money in any traditional sense.
Consider the following trilemma:
Reduce taxation.
Increase government spending.
Balance the books.
One might rationally be in favour of all the above, but in general, one cannot have all 3 at once; something has to give. So a rational voter will likely vote for some (any) combination of 2 of these, at the expense of the 3rd. But this means that a population of entirely rational voters can achieve a two thirds majority for all three, and that is impossible to implement.
And this is an idealised and unrealistically simple state of affairs. In practice there are hundreds of interlocked and complex policy decisions to be made and voters are not even well informed, never mind rational. Implementing what the majority want is always actually impossible, and even to the extent it might be possible is unlikely to be wise.
So just because a majority favour policy X, that does not mean that policy X can be implemented in a way that is consistent with other policies that have a majority. Life is more interesting than that, and it is not just a matter of someone knowing better what is right.
Actually you are wrong, unenlightened.
You can indeed have all of the three.
You just erase the public debt that the central bank has, which is the largest individual owner of that debt! Erasing 2,5 trillion dollars, basically 1/8 of the gross debt, has to give Trump some money to build that wall and lower taxes of the wealthy, you know. As you can say the central bank is de facto part of the public sector, a consolidated public sector balance sheet would net this debt out.
Yippiee!!! :grin: :grin: :razz:
:up:
We need, as you said, "rational voters". Absent that, democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. An oxymoron apparently but brings into relief the painful fact that the system of democracy by itself is simply not enough for a good government. We need educated, well-informed, rational people to make a true democracy. I want to say that the world's democracies are attempting to do that by laying necessary emphasis on education, developing and encouraging methods of increasing the intelligence of the general populace but I would be lying. Don't you think?
It's not the fault of the leaders though. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the people themselves. Ill-informed and irrational people don't vote for what's right but for what they want. What they want is hardly ever about making education accessible. So, their children are as/more irrational than them. These children grow up and repeat the process. It's a vicious cycle which negatively impacts democracy.
But I do agree that "life is more interesting than that". What I said does very little justice to the complexity of the matter but it's certainly something to think about.
Or they just choose something from the plate of rotten choices given to them. And just whine about the choices being bad, but not doing anything themselves.The problem isn't irrationality, it's more about basic apathy, the belief things won't improve and there's nothing you can do about it.
For example, I haven't met the American who is happy about the country having the most expensive health care system in the World that only gives out a mediocre service (except for the rich) and results in poor health statistics compared to other countries. Perhaps it's the rich doctor enjoying his 1%-status that enjoys the system.
Perhaps, but doctors do not constitute a majority - that's lawyers. The problem is one cannot have a good, cheap, universal, private healthcare system. It is not enough to vote for apple pie, one has to vote for orchards and bakeries too, and that means not letting me build a gambling parlour on grandpa's apple farm.
Look, every other health care system IN THE WORLD is cheaper than the US system. And A LOT of these health care systems even with their flaws make the people under these systems to live longer and be healthier than Americans.
The only reason for this is extremely simple: the American system IS INTENDED to make a profit for companies in the health care business, who basically have made the system for themselves. Americans simply want to pour money to the system in order for someone to make a fortune.
And it seems like many Americans are so demoralized, that they fear anything radically different would be even worse.
Quoting unenlightened
Well, actually you can have even private companies in an universal health care system. Starting from private insurance companies ordered by law to give the service with a reasonable modest incentive to do it. Or the government buying the medicine on bulk, which can lower the prices.
But when the private companies themselves define the health care system, then you are right, it indeed is impossible.
Just look at the last slew of US and UK presidents - a laundry list of ABSOLUTELY DEMENTED individuals with Obama snuck in there to ensure Wall Street reigns supreme.
Ask 1000 people off the street if they want war... you'll get 999 NOs - and yet we live in a Democracy.
Democracy keeps people in line because it represents the illusion of choice. "I can change the direction of the country with my vote" - What a joke.
Karl Marx was on the right track. The correct form of government is SOCIALISM... But with a philosopher at the top. As Plato teaches us, there can be no peace on earth until kings become Philosophers and vice versa. When you put a regular man at the top of all the resources, the absolute nature of power corrupts absolutely.
And philosophers are not regular men?
Quoting PhilCF
This is a nice fiction, but it's not true. Wars have been fought with a broad majority supporting them. People are not categorically opposed to violence.
In terms of the nice fiction, you are incorrect... People off the street would say "we do not want war" - the Yang is the dominant force in the overwhelming number of human hears... but all the world's a stage, and the dumbed down herd accept the propaganda fed through the state sponsored screen. ISIS is a threat etc...
Vs an oligarchy: two of your friends decide for the group.
Vs an dictatorship.
Is one better than the others?
You need one guy who knows... a philosopher king of the restaurant game. Then youll eat well for now and forever.
And if he chooses a pizza parlor when you were in the mood for Greek, has he still chosen the right restaurant for you?
You can't be a king because you study Philosopher. Plato didn't mean that. He meant that you give the top spot to the greatest Philosopher alive. And that man knows where to eat x
I find that - and this is certainly true in this forum - Philosophy has been ambushed by sophists trying to be clever - this is a real shame as Philosophy is a noble art, and doesn't deserve to be sullied by this nonsense.
What gives it away?
What do you think it would take for the US to become a dictatorship?
Then there are other goals that probably no one thinks are goods in themselves. Most people are aware that they want money in order to be able to buy things.
Now, traditionally any system of government has always been assessed according to what it might be able to achieve and the question “Why do we need a government at all?” is one it is valid to ask. Even a democrat must answer that question and when doing that he will realize that if the purpose of government is to achieve something. Then democracy, which is one particular system of government, must also be there to achieve something other than itself.
What would you prefer? To live in a democracy and be unhappy or to live in a dictatorship and be happy? Both are certainly possible. Maybe a democracy is more likely to make you happy, but that’s a different argument.
Happiness, satisfaction, a sense if completion?
Just as people differ and so your happiness differs from mine, societies differ: they have different histories, imperatives, and challenges, so the shape of their happinesses differ.
There is no one-size-fits-all government. Do you agree?
Trump displays a few mild aspects of fascism: strong-man or one-man rule; crass service to heavy industry (coal, oil, gas, for example); appeals to racial hostilities (even if subtle); what could be a deliberately confusing communication policy which undermines rational discussion; a limited interest in civil rights--all that sort of thing. Fascism has been usefully described as "more of a method than a doctrine". So, it's the disruption of democratic government that is fascistic. Trump isn't the first one to do this, of course.
Trump is a mild sample -- not the real deal, however. The Republican Party has played around with the subversion of democracy. The Senate's refusal to consider Obama's Supreme Court nomination Merrick Garland is the sort of thing that happens in crypto-fascism.
A highly dissatisfied military seems to be a requirement for fascism. We seem to have a reasonably contented military, which is a good thing. Fascism needs a major crisis -- either a real or a manufactured one. Not since the simultaneous attack on the Philippines and Pearl Harbor have we had a sufficiently opportune crisis for American fascism to take off. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 unfolded too swiftly for it to be an opportunity for a fascist attempt.
The People need to be suffering enough and looking for fascist relief. Americans are not suffering enough to spring for a fascist dictator. The vast majority of US citizens are at least reasonably well-fed, clothed, and employed. We may have various unsatisfied longings, but these are not the sort of dissatisfactions that lead people into adulation of the Maximum Leader.
We are not in a 1930s European moment.
Phillip Roth's novel The Plot Against America (pub. 2004) is an interesting take on a fascist takeover. If I remember correctly, it was set in the 1930s and Charles Lindbergh (first to fly Solo across the Atlantic) was the fascist candidate.
Madelaine Albright published a book recently: Fascism - A Warning. Haven't read it.
Given a BIG PROBLEM, and given a powerful core group who were willing to make a play for a coup d'état dictatorship, and given a sufficiently dissatisfied military, we could end up with a dictatorship. It probably won't look like Nazi Germany, the USSR or Cuba. I would expect it to have a distinctly American flavor (which is deep-fat-fried).
A lot of philosophers believe that the discovery of new knowledge is the result of a rational procedure.
That is why they fail to discover it. Reason is limited to verifying that the knowledge conclusion necessarily follows from its justification. Reason by itself cannot discover what conclusion to make nor what evidence would support such conclusion. That is the prerogative of other unknown, mental faculties.
Why and how did Einstein manage to write his seminal 1905 paper that propelled him to fame? We do not know. It is certainly not the result of reasoning or any other purely mechanical procedure, such as "He collects up all the information and then makes the right choice".
It is a mistake to believe that humanity would be characterized by reason, which is merely a mechanical procedure that machines can carry out too. Humanity is characterized by other unknown mental faculties that allow it to discover new knowledge.
Therefore, "collecting information and making the right choice" is a very, very weak principle. This kind of mechanical procedures do not allow for changing the ball game. That is also, absolutely not how Einstein discovered special relativity in 1905. It is rather how the software controlling a robot in a factory steers the details of the production of new widgets.
It would open the door, but whether the US goes through it would depend on how badly people are suffering.
Something bad: A very severe west coast earthquake (the BIG ONE) during a year when agricultural production falls precipitously (drought, heavy rain, late frost, insects, disease--all quite possible) Maybe a pandemic following a really big natural disaster. Maybe a huge and sudden influx of people from Mexico, Central America, and Northern South America caused by Global Warming and a pandemic (perfect timing). Let's say that whatever the huge crisis is, the Federal Government proves unable to mount a response. Part of the population is desperate; part of the population is deeply resentful; everybody is angry and looking for someone to blame. People on the west coast (maybe 25 million) are in bad shape. Lots of people are very worried.
A group within the military, perhaps possibly, comes forward and seizes the government. Let's say they actually prove somewhat adept at dealing with the crises. Voila! a dictatorship.
Or maybe somebody like Trump, only more evil. Much more evil. (It's not that I love Donald, or anything like that. I just don't think he's spent the last 25 years planning, plotting, and preparing to take over the government and become a dictator. Hitler and Mussolini worked at it for quite a while. Trump is an asshole but he's too self-absorbed to make a good dictator.
Satisfaction probably means a less extensive form of happiness. If you have happiness, you also have satisfaction or satisfaction may lead to happiness. In either case happiness is the highest good.
A sense of completion is probably also an ingredient of happiness.
The concrete expression of happiness differs from person to person, but in general terms it may be the same. One person gets a sense of self-fulfillment from his stamp collection and another one gets it from playing football. We can still say that their happiness has the same content, namely self-fulfillment.
A good government would take into account the specific needs of its specific people and that would be reflected in the laws. However, the laws and policies of a state may not depend on any particular system of government. A system of government regulates the decision making process, not the decisions themselves. Now, you may make the argument that democracy is always more likely to produce the right tailor made laws, or if monarchy is your favorite you may attribute that ability to a monarchy. What an individually unique people needs is individually unique laws, the system of government, for example democracy, is just a tool. Maybe any system of government could fit a given country if only its policy was good.
I agree about Trump. What I've mainly learned by way of him is the readiness with which some of my neighbors can rally round a guy who puts out dictatorial vibes.
There's just no chaos, anxiety, and starvation to propel a dictator into power right now.
I won't be taking any flights, going to the doctor, or engaging pretty much anyone's services,in your world.
As to democracy; I don't think we have it, we have a simulacrum. Our familiar so-called "liberal democracy" is not going to work in the times to come. Prepare yourself for ever-increasing social control and erosion of so-called "rights".
For which we can be very grateful. But... maybe later.
Do you mean that in regard to the possible inconsistency in working hours?
You'd be free to make those choices.
Yes I would, and yes I am; so where would be the advantage in your world?
:up: :lol:
No one would be homeless, hungry, without medical care, without the education they want, unemployed (and at jobs they want), etc. You'd be able to take whatever time off you want to take off. You'd be able to consensually do whatever you want to consensually do, etc.
Yep. The other issue: to what extent does the US accept dictatorships as manifest in alliances.
Wasn't there a time when the world was divided up into good guys and the evil communist dictatorships?
After multiple middle eastern shit shows, does the US now accept the need of some people of firm and ruthless rule?