• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is democracy an open door to totalitarianism?

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I figured this was the best place to put this.

I was thinking earlier on today, about how European democracy and American democracy seem to differ, that one doesnt mean the same thing in one geo-poltical region as in the other. It seems the word "democracy" is used today by both politicians and non politicians alike as a synonym of good government, though I've already, in the past, posited that this is questioneable. Anyways, as I said, in America, Democracy seems to mean something different than in Europe, in that in the American system it has become synonymous with the defending the rights of citizens via the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, wheareas in Europe thats not what democracy means at all, it is more a synonymn of freedom or should I say, too much freedom. This is even more true of the term "democracy" in the Middle East. The whole Arab Spring thing is a disaster, wars, chaos, Islamists and terrorist organizations taking over. Is this what democracy looks like? Perhaps, when too much freedom reigns, anything becomes possible. Even totalitarianism.

Plato had some interesting insights regarding democracy, or the rule of the many, in The Republic. He said that democracy and Tyranny(the word "Totalitarianism" didnt exist until the 20th century, when it became a sad reality) where two opposite swings of a pendulum, one being the time of freedom and the other being the time when the people are improsined under the rule of a tyrant. However, one easily leads to the other, as in having total freedom inevitably means someone will take abuse of power to its extreme and total form. Having total freedom means anyone can abuse and suppress that freedom. This is and had has been the case throughout thousands of years of European history, though America seems to have avoided this problem.

I think Democracy is bad for Europe and even worse for the Middle East. In America, poltical parties that are hateful, extremist, or terrorists are outlawed. However in most European countries, part of the freedom is having NAZI, Islamist, and white supremacist parties(just to name a few) be allowed to participate in elections! Recently the Dutch government wants to- wants to - permit a hateful Islamist party to join their elections. This disgusts me. If you compare Europe's laxist mentality to the no Bullshit attitude of American law in this regard, you can see that, why I, as a European do not promote democracy as a form of government. If I lived in the Middle East, which thank God I dont, I would hate it even ten times more.

I feel that everyone has to stop using the word "deocracy" as a synonym of good government for non-American countries. Until developing countries produce great minds such as Jefferson and Washington to write their constitutions for them, based on social contract, human rights for all and on outlawing political parties which promote an idealogy which has been known to lead to suppession of individual freedoms(such as Islamist parties) they shouldnt idealize the right to vote. Voting, in the Middle East, always means Islamists get the vote, since appearantly many want them to be in power. There are also many who dont, but I suspect elections in countries like Egypt were rigged anyways.

Anyways, what are your thoughts?
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
libertarian platitudes 101

you can teach it

What does what I wrote have to do with libertarianism? Seriously, I never said anything about libertarianism, nor is this the place to discuss it.:dry:
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Lark said:
Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

People should govern themselves, unless they are working people and vote together.

Again, this isnt the place to vent your hatred of libertarianism, Lark, as much as youd like it to be, my OP was about something much more rich than promoting libertarianism.

Did you even read it?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Again, this isnt the place to vent your hatred of libertarianism, Lark, as much as youd like it to be, my OP was about something much more rich than promoting libertarianism.

Did you even read it?

Yeah, you'll find I give vent to whatever I feel like, if you have difficulty with that well, I'm sure you can find help someplace.

I read it and I thought that [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] summed it up about right.
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yeah, you'll find I give vent to whatever I feel like, if you have difficulty with that well, I'm sure you can find help someplace.

I read it and I thought that [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] summed it up about right.

Well I feel that he didnt, and his attitude towards me reflects in that response shows that he either didnt understand what I wrote, or didnt read it carefully enough.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Well I feel that he didnt, and his attitude towards me reflects in that response shows that he either didnt understand what I wrote, or didnt read it carefully enough.

Perhaps you dont understand what he wrote or why and you've personalised it. Your view of democracy IS a libertarian platitude.
 

hjgbujhghg

I am
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,333
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
European democracy is not built on "too much freedom". Opposite to the american democracy it is much more humanitarian, social, and open minded and provides more ways of understanding and explanations. European democracy is more open to people and their needs, while the american is more open to business and possibilities, with very strong belief and moral system. Also you can't say just "European democracy" , Europe doesn't exists as a state, but as a union of different and politically independent sates with different types of democracy, leadership and system. Every state has it's own way to manage their country. You can't ever say right/wrong democracy. Europe developed its political system, when indians in america were hunting bison. Democracy in America is built on this right/wrong system, democrats/republicans, liberalism/conservative... While in Europe you have the wide circle of different approaches and political parts. So yes democracy in Europe is much more free and open.... Why would it lead us to totality? We still have free schools, free universities, free medical care, medias, that don't wash up our minds, we can say what we really want and believe in without being called the terorists... Eurpe just doesn't need that strong moral and belief system as America need it... be honest... look what happend to you... Bush... really? Obama... not bad, but stil... You are about going to Syria? Oh...I thought so, you can't find oil in Egypt right?
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Perhaps you dont understand what he wrote or why and you've personalised it. Your view of democracy IS a libertarian platitude.

No its not, not liberterian nor a platitude.

My ideal of government is something along the lines of a more tradional aristocracy. Aristcoracy is the opposite of democracy, in that leaders simply are not elected but attain government positions through birthright, or divine right.

Libertarinism is something different, being a relatively new phenomenon, it is simply right wing economics mixed with anti governmentism.

Libertarians want as little possible strain from that governemnt as possible, and thats part of the problem I describe: wanting too much freedom in an organized society. I dont want that.

Also I did say that Democracy was fine in America, but not in Europe or the Middle East for humanitarian reasons. Morsi's concept of democracy, founded on Charia law(which according to Morsi is the "highest expression of democracy"), kills people.

The only real platitude in people's mouths is the word "democracy", used a synonym of good government.
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
European democracy is not built on "too much freedom". Opposite to the american democracy it is much more humanitarian, social, and open minded and provides more ways of understanding and explanations. European democracy is more open to people and their needs, while the american is more open to business and possibilities, with very strong belief and moral system. Also you can't say just "European democracy" , Europe doesn't exists as a state, but as a union of different and politically independent sates with different types of democracy, leadership and system. Every state has it's own way to manage their country. You can't ever say right/wrong democracy. Europe developed its political system, when indians in america were hunting bison. Democracy in America is built on this right/wrong system, democrats/republicans, liberalism/conservative...

Actually the French invented the Right vs Left thing, and havent been able to get past it.

While in Europe you have the wide circle of different approaches and political parts. So yes democracy in Europe is much more free and open.... Why would it lead us to totality?

Look at history a little.

We still have free schools, free universities, free medical care, medias, that don't wash up our minds, we can say what we really want and believe in without being called the terorists... Eurpe just doesn't need that strong moral and belief system as America need it... be honest... look what happend to you... Bush... really? Obama... not bad, but stil... You are to going Syria? Oh...I thought so, you can't find oil in Egypt right?

Just to be sure, with all this talk of diversity, you think that NAZI and Islmamist parties should be tolerated?

Bi partisan politics is a big part of American politcs yes, but thats isnt my point. I dont really like the bi partisan system either, I dont mind there being more than two poltical parties involved, but thats way beside my point, which is that certain parties shouldnt be tolerated at all.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
No its not, not liberterian nor a platitude.

My ideal of government is something along the lines of a more tradional aristocracy. Aristcoracy is the opposite of democracy, in that leaders simply are not elected but attain government positions through birthright, or divine right.

Libertarinism is something different, being a relatively new phenomenon, it is simply right wing economics mixed with anti governmentism.

Libertarians want as little possible strain from that governemnt as possible, and thats part of the problem I describe: wanting too much freedom in an organized society. I dont want that.

Also I did say that Democracy was fine in America, but not in Europe or the Middle East for humanitarian reasons. Morsi's concept of democracy, founded on Charia law(which according to Morsi is the "highest expression of democracy"), kills people.

The only real platitude in people's mouths is the word "democracy", used a synonym of good government.

It sounds more like you're in favour of feudalism. Especially given that you think freedom is a bad thing.

You've got a pretty poor understanding of what democracy is or ought to be but then you're no exception in that regard, I dont believe in divine right and I dont believe there's anything substantively different between "aristocracy" and the plutonomy which reigns in libertarian orders or which is threatened by democracy.

I am a socialist I think democracy should go beyond political life to economic and social life too.
 

hjgbujhghg

I am
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,333
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Actually the French invented the Right vs Left thing, and havent been able to get past it.



Look at history a little.



Just to be sure, with all this talk of diversity, you think that NAZI and Islmamist parties should be tolerated?

Bi partisan politics is a big part of American politcs yes, but thats isnt my point. I dont really like the bi partisan system either, I dont mind there being more than two poltical parties involved, but thats way beside my point, which is that certain parties shouldnt be tolerated at all.

I don't get this... Who the hell told you we tolerate nazi parts?! We had Hitler, you had Bush deal with it. It's a history, any sayings, or makrs that might involved nazism, or fascism are prohibited by the law. Just saying "Hail" with your right arm up costs you 50 euros of fine. Other nazi marks, propaganda, sayings are punished by prison. And what is your deal with islam? Saying that all muslims and their whole religion is bad, is the same thing like saying: "all jews to the gass!" Who is the nazi here?
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It sounds more like you're in favour of feudalism. Especially given that you think freedom is a bad thing.

Ill google that. Anything in excess is bad, and that includes freedom, but if you read what I wrote, you would understand I was only saying that having freedom taken away by a dictator is a bad thing. I other words, freedom, is actually a good thing in moderation.

You've got a pretty poor understanding of what democracy is or ought to be but then you're no exception in that regard I dont believe in divine right and I dont believe there's anything substantively different between "aristocracy" and the plutonomy which reigns in libertarian orders or which is threatened by democracy.

I admit that Ive never been the best at Politcal Science, yeah, but I dunno. I admit there is something similar between aristocracy and the idealizations of a thinker like Hans Hermann Hoppe for example, where Monarchy is seen a superior form of government to Democracy, but take a someone like Ayn Rand for example, I cant imagine her being in favor of any aristocracy of sorts like I am.

I am a socialist I think democracy should go beyond political life to economic and social life too.

I knew you were a socialist, I cant say I am, I do think social programs can be benefical to people with health problems etc, but Im not a huge fan of it either as I know many people who are on welfare programs of some sort and seem to use that as an excuse to not work. I understand there are some people with mental or physical health diffuculties who cant work, but thats different. But then again, level of empolyemnt is not related to socialism or capitalism.
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't get this... Who the hell told you we tolerate nazi parts?! We had Hitler, you had Bush deal with it. It's a history, any sayings, or makrs that might involved nazism, or fascism are prohibited by the law. Just saying "Hail" with your right arm up costs you 50 euros of fine.
Other nazi marks, propaganda, sayings are punished by prison. And what is your deal with islam? Saying that all muslims and their whole religion is bad, is the same thing like saying: "all jews to the gass!" Who is the nazi here?

Your assumptions are in bold.

And this is funny.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Ill google that. Anything in excess is bad, and that includes freedom, but if you read what I wrote, you would understand I was only saying that having freedom taken away by a dictator is a bad thing. I other words, freedom, is actually a good thing in moderation.

I dont believe so.

I admit that Ive never been the best at Politcal Science, yeah, but I dunno. I admit there is something similar between aristocracy and the idealizations of a thinker like Hans Hermann Hoppe for example, where Monarchy is seen a superior form of government to Democracy, but take a someone like Ayn Rand for example, I cant imagine her being in favor of any aristocracy of sorts like I am.

The reasoning for monarchy being superior to other forms of government is generally to do with tradition and its transmission across generations, stability and continuity amid tumultuous short term thinking or the chaotic rise and fall of individuals (liberalism), elites (conservatism) or public (socialism) but that is a silent monarchy and constitutional monarchy, its only possible to make that argument because it is the background and one of the other factors is the foreground (liberalism, conservatism, socialism).

The fact that Rand would support it would INSTANTLY make be detest it. No doubt.

I knew you were a socialist, I cant say I am, I do think social programs can be benefical to people with health problems etc, but Im not a huge fan of it either as I know many people who are on welfare programs of some sort and seem to use that as an excuse to not work. I understand there are some people with mental or physical health diffuculties who cant work, but thats different. But then again, level of empolyemnt is not related to socialism or capitalism.

Those things you mention I dont associate with socialism, socialism predated them all and will postdate them all, there's plenty of good writers who have focused upon the fact that the state is not a means for the introduction or furthering of socialism and I believe that's fundamentally correct.

The welfare state, public and health services, mixed ownership and administration of services, taxation and spending, those are all factors of public policy and there are interventionist states which use freemarkets, such as German, France, Sweden, in their health services, there are other freemarketeer states which use public spending and intervention in health services, such as America and the UK, I dont believe it has anything to do with socialism at all. Partisans on the left and right wing argue it is but they can be safely left to their tennis match, they need each other, each others narratives support one another but anyone who is an actual thinker and safely leave them to one side.

Socialism I dont think is about whether people can work or not or the availability of health services, I dont believe that at all, those are questions of efficiency, equity, public ethics even but not socialism. I think socialism has to do with the importance of social struggles and class struggles for public life and the economy. I do believe that an active citizenry and participatory democracy is necessary components of that, it should be in the economic sphere and workplace, not just an annual polling at election time. I see that as all necessary to make good on all the "old promises" of liberalism or anything else, about personal responsibility etc. and not just to deliver on the promise of better times than these.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I think he did, and went another direction with it maybe. I liked this:

The core of it really overrides libertarian presuppositions, that a democracy is a collective establishment of law and regulations.

That's the view of the plutonomy I mentioned, democracy is great until it messes with the transfer of public money to private off shore accounts or the elites favourite tax dodges, fiddles and phony profits, ie cutting wages, workforce and consumer rights.

My view of democracy is that it is intended to reflect popular sovereignty, which is necessary collorary to individual sovereignty in public life.

Individuals are necessary self-governing, that is an objective fact whatever way public life is organised, however that can be supported or diminished by the extent to which popular sovereignty is supported or repressed. Responsible individuals should mean a responsible public should mean that professionals and politicians can do their thing but they are expendable, in a crisis or a breakdown, when professionals or politicians are not available or cant provide remedy, then suffering is minimised because a responsible public can act instead. A community should be like a ship, everyone should be prepared to take the wheel.

Conservatives see that sort of public life as a substitue for welfare and public spending, they'd eliminate those things in favour of the deseperate measures people pull together in a crisis and pass on the saving as a new tax dodge to their rich buddies, liberals might believe that, they might err more on the side of what I'd call democratic socialism, liberalism is one of those dodgy creedos which can go either way, the bisexuality of politics and I've never liked it.
 
Top