5 ms·

> Generally, countries with good human rights record (Western democracies) would be constantly out-voted by authoritarian countries with large populations (Chin

> Generally, countries with good human rights record (Western democracies) would be constantly out-voted by authoritarian countries with large populations (China and Russia, and with some less authoritarianism but still poor human rights record, India). Did you notice the irony in your comment? You praise the "good record" of Western democracies, but do not want a "democracy" within UN, because in that way, the idea of democracy would work against the "Western democracies". That seems to be some kind of "selective democracy", i.e. only apply democracy when it works to your advantage. If you really support democracy, why not embrace it in the UN and let the decision be based on votes?

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
It's not a democracy to have proportional representation with big countries that are not, internally, free democracies.
ptaipale 10y ago
What you mention as irony is of course nothing new; it's similar to what is described e.g. by Popper as paradox of democracy: the possibility that a majority decides for a tyrant to rule. However, that there's a paradox is no reason to not acknowledge that Western democracies have the best human rights situation and personal freedom in the world, and giving control of the Internet to authoritarian, populous regimes would be bad for us all.
- throw2016 10y ago
  This is regurgitating past propaganda and myths perpetuated over the last few decades that cannot be taken for granted anymore and do not stand up to scrutiny. The US had caused more wars and killed more people in the last 50 years than other countries combined, for financial gain and continues to do so. And no one has been held to account for these serious crimes against humanity. There is a serious situation with the way black people are treated by the law enforcement, their continued marginalization, demonization, and social mobility. There are more issues around native americans. There is an entire totalitarian type surveillance state now in operation, with secret courts, secret lists, secret processes and those in power not only routinely getting away with crimes against humanity but also their own people. Whistle blowers and journalists like Drake, Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras and others who seek to expose the burgeoning surveillance state far from raising alarm are being harassed and persecuted. These cannot be held up as examples of individuals or states that care about human rights and freedom and I suspect the reality of losing the historical and carefully nurtured 'moral high ground' that has been used to principally bully 'inconvenient' interests and nations has not sunk in among the population. Continuing to claim the high ground clings to nostalgia and myths that have little to do with reality. The abuse of human rights to demonize other nations for political and strategic interests with little actual concern for people at large has gone on for too long. And achieved little in reality than fuelling a gratutious sense of superiority in the west and complacency in turn and diasters like in Iraq and other unfortunate targets. A genuine interest in human rights will need a untainted less self interested approach. Freedom is not a competition.
  - 6e0prjs5fv 10y ago
    You've convinced me, these countries are right, the US is evil and the internet should be disabled so we can live in freedom without war.
    - goodplay 10y ago
      I am aware that this is a troll comment (I hope), and that it is not in any way meant to refute the GP or earlier comments. That said, the parent post was merely demonstrating that "morally right" or "best human rights" record is completely subjective. In a democratic system, your notion of "right" and "wrong" is nonsensical and incorrect if it does not align with the majority, regardless of how "evil" or horrifying this may seem. You either have democracy or you don't.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        >You either have democracy or you don't. Certainly not so. Having democracy is never about black and white, if we want to use a metaphor. It's about shades of grey between black and white. A scale between absolute democracy (which is hard to define and hardly exists) and absolute lack of democracy (which is almost achieved, often by countries that describe themselves as "people's democracies"). Western democracies certainly are closer to actual ideals of democracy. And if we think of the Internet, we certainly want it to be controlled by parties living in the Western democracies, not by autocratic, repressive governments that have a majority of world population.
        tremon 10y ago
        if we think of the Internet, we certainly want it to be controlled by parties living in the Western democracies No, that is not enough. If it is to be controlled at all, I want it controlled by democratic bodies, not simply by parties that happen to reside in a democracy. Or would you be happy to let the Internet be controlled by Enron, Halliburton, the NRA or the RIAA?
douche 10y ago
It's consistent with US representative democracy. Read through the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, and you can't help but notice that they were as worried about the tyranny of mob rule as they were of the arbitrariness of monarchy - which was rather pointedly illustrated in the French Revolution just a few years later. People are stupid, and generally don't know what is best for them, and the more of them you get together, the more likely they'll develop mass insanity. You need some kind of buffer to moderate the fickle will of the public.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  > People are stupid, and generally don't know what is best for them, and the more of them you get together, the more likely they'll develop mass insanity. People all have a similar amount of intelligence. Given that the effect you acknowledge is partially due to large groups, I wonder if it's more a problem of party politics, or an us-versus-them mentality, or collective decision-making...
rayiner 10y ago
There is nothing ironic about his comments. A necessary precondition for democracy is self-determination: people choosing to throw their lot in with other people who have compatible values.
y4mi 10y ago
unrestricted democracy was one of the reasons hitler got into power. i'm sure everyone can agree that some restrictions are necessary
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Or more accurately, the reason was not unrestricted democracy but bypassed restrictions on democracy. The Enabling Act was passed unconstitutionally, with the legislators physically threatened by members of SA and SS. It was a coup d'etat.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

It's not a democracy to have proportional representation with big countries that are not, internally, free democracies.

ptaipale 10y ago

What you mention as irony is of course nothing new; it's similar to what is described e.g. by Popper as paradox of democracy: the possibility that a majority decides for a tyrant to rule. However, that there's a paradox is no reason to not acknowledge that Western democracies have the best human rights situation and personal freedom in the world, and giving control of the Internet to authoritarian, populous regimes would be bad for us all.

throw2016 10y ago
This is regurgitating past propaganda and myths perpetuated over the last few decades that cannot be taken for granted anymore and do not stand up to scrutiny. The US had caused more wars and killed more people in the last 50 years than other countries combined, for financial gain and continues to do so. And no one has been held to account for these serious crimes against humanity. There is a serious situation with the way black people are treated by the law enforcement, their continued marginalization, demonization, and social mobility. There are more issues around native americans. There is an entire totalitarian type surveillance state now in operation, with secret courts, secret lists, secret processes and those in power not only routinely getting away with crimes against humanity but also their own people. Whistle blowers and journalists like Drake, Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras and others who seek to expose the burgeoning surveillance state far from raising alarm are being harassed and persecuted. These cannot be held up as examples of individuals or states that care about human rights and freedom and I suspect the reality of losing the historical and carefully nurtured 'moral high ground' that has been used to principally bully 'inconvenient' interests and nations has not sunk in among the population. Continuing to claim the high ground clings to nostalgia and myths that have little to do with reality. The abuse of human rights to demonize other nations for political and strategic interests with little actual concern for people at large has gone on for too long. And achieved little in reality than fuelling a gratutious sense of superiority in the west and complacency in turn and diasters like in Iraq and other unfortunate targets. A genuine interest in human rights will need a untainted less self interested approach. Freedom is not a competition.
- 6e0prjs5fv 10y ago
  You've convinced me, these countries are right, the US is evil and the internet should be disabled so we can live in freedom without war.
  - goodplay 10y ago
    I am aware that this is a troll comment (I hope), and that it is not in any way meant to refute the GP or earlier comments. That said, the parent post was merely demonstrating that "morally right" or "best human rights" record is completely subjective. In a democratic system, your notion of "right" and "wrong" is nonsensical and incorrect if it does not align with the majority, regardless of how "evil" or horrifying this may seem. You either have democracy or you don't.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      >You either have democracy or you don't. Certainly not so. Having democracy is never about black and white, if we want to use a metaphor. It's about shades of grey between black and white. A scale between absolute democracy (which is hard to define and hardly exists) and absolute lack of democracy (which is almost achieved, often by countries that describe themselves as "people's democracies"). Western democracies certainly are closer to actual ideals of democracy. And if we think of the Internet, we certainly want it to be controlled by parties living in the Western democracies, not by autocratic, repressive governments that have a majority of world population.
      - tremon 10y ago
        if we think of the Internet, we certainly want it to be controlled by parties living in the Western democracies No, that is not enough. If it is to be controlled at all, I want it controlled by democratic bodies, not simply by parties that happen to reside in a democracy. Or would you be happy to let the Internet be controlled by Enron, Halliburton, the NRA or the RIAA?

douche 10y ago

It's consistent with US representative democracy. Read through the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, and you can't help but notice that they were as worried about the tyranny of mob rule as they were of the arbitrariness of monarchy - which was rather pointedly illustrated in the French Revolution just a few years later. People are stupid, and generally don't know what is best for them, and the more of them you get together, the more likely they'll develop mass insanity. You need some kind of buffer to moderate the fickle will of the public.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> People are stupid, and generally don't know what is best for them, and the more of them you get together, the more likely they'll develop mass insanity. People all have a similar amount of intelligence. Given that the effect you acknowledge is partially due to large groups, I wonder if it's more a problem of party politics, or an us-versus-them mentality, or collective decision-making...

rayiner 10y ago

There is nothing ironic about his comments. A necessary precondition for democracy is self-determination: people choosing to throw their lot in with other people who have compatible values.

y4mi 10y ago

unrestricted democracy was one of the reasons hitler got into power. i'm sure everyone can agree that some restrictions are necessary

ptaipale 10y ago
Or more accurately, the reason was not unrestricted democracy but bypassed restrictions on democracy. The Enabling Act was passed unconstitutionally, with the legislators physically threatened by members of SA and SS. It was a coup d'etat.