3 ms·

>If one is forced to choose between freedom and democracy, I don't see any moral choice but to choose freedom. An odd choice to equate freedom with capitalism

>If one is forced to choose between freedom and democracy, I don't see any moral choice but to choose freedom. An odd choice to equate freedom with capitalism but not with democracy. You are holding the right to control private trade more free than the right of some to representative government; in other words, the freedom of few over many.

smsm42 10y ago
Why is it odd? Democracy, strictly meant as rule by the majority, voting, etc. by itself is not freedom. Majority can oppress minority in a very democratic manner. Of course, modern democracy implies many freedoms built in, so when we say "democracy" we should be aware which meaning we consider. > You are holding the right to control private trade Capitalism is the opposite of "right to control private trade" - it's the right to own and exchange property voluntarily, without forceful intervention. So it is part of the freedoms. Of course, it can exist in theory without representative government, though in practice such government very soon takes control over economics and thus capitalism can exist only within limits it prescribes.
- chimprich 10y ago
  Unless you're a utopian anarchist some form of government is essential to the operation of society. The alternative to democracy is non-representational government. In other words, democracy may not define freedom by itself, but it's absence is certainly non-free. Feel free to point to a government that is non-democratic or imposes significant restrictions on democracy that has a free society. On the other hand there are a number of countries that restrict capitalism in some way but have free societies. Of course it depends on what you mean by "freedom"; if you mean it is "free to move capital around" but not "everyone is free to elect their leaders" then sure, but that is not how I understand the term. [OT but pretty pathetic that I got downvoted for my previous comment by someone. Tempting to speculate it was (hilariously and ironically) by a Thiel supporter sore at the idea that he might have his views being suppressed.]
  - internaut 10y ago
    There is a large gap between "democracy" and "representation". I feel this is instinctively understood by every Sanders supporter who claims "we're not in a real democracy!" or "we don't have enough democracy", but they are using the wrong word. They are living in a republic with a democracy but they aren't seriously represented. Representation is the telos of democracy but it does not always achieve it. And that is why everybody should become a reactionary. Only by returning to first principals will everybody get what they really want. There's too much cruft! > Feel free to point to a government that is non-democratic or imposes significant restrictions on democracy that has a free society. China. Singapore. Japan. Korea. All these states have some kind of democracy. Yes, even Communist China does have some democracy. All these states have significant restrictions on it. In the most democratic ones power has been in the same hands about 90% of the time. > Of course it depends on what you mean by "freedom"; if you mean it is "free to move capital around" but not "everyone is free to elect their leaders" then sure, but that is not how I understand the term. Let me help you out. It is certainly the case that the word freedom has become seriously overloaded, much like the word democracy. Most of us see freedom to mean autonomy in this context. In a practical example if the BBC requires you to pay for a TV license because you own a visual display then your freedom is reduced because your number of choices is being narrowed. You have less autonomy because even if you don't watch TV or the BBC channels you are forced to pay for their services anyway. Another practical example is I hear the people in Flint are paying for poisoned water and have no choice in the matter otherwise their houses and belongings may be possessed by the state sending debt collectors.

smsm42 10y ago

Why is it odd? Democracy, strictly meant as rule by the majority, voting, etc. by itself is not freedom. Majority can oppress minority in a very democratic manner. Of course, modern democracy implies many freedoms built in, so when we say "democracy" we should be aware which meaning we consider. > You are holding the right to control private trade Capitalism is the opposite of "right to control private trade" - it's the right to own and exchange property voluntarily, without forceful intervention. So it is part of the freedoms. Of course, it can exist in theory without representative government, though in practice such government very soon takes control over economics and thus capitalism can exist only within limits it prescribes.

chimprich 10y ago
Unless you're a utopian anarchist some form of government is essential to the operation of society. The alternative to democracy is non-representational government. In other words, democracy may not define freedom by itself, but it's absence is certainly non-free. Feel free to point to a government that is non-democratic or imposes significant restrictions on democracy that has a free society. On the other hand there are a number of countries that restrict capitalism in some way but have free societies. Of course it depends on what you mean by "freedom"; if you mean it is "free to move capital around" but not "everyone is free to elect their leaders" then sure, but that is not how I understand the term. [OT but pretty pathetic that I got downvoted for my previous comment by someone. Tempting to speculate it was (hilariously and ironically) by a Thiel supporter sore at the idea that he might have his views being suppressed.]
- internaut 10y ago
  There is a large gap between "democracy" and "representation". I feel this is instinctively understood by every Sanders supporter who claims "we're not in a real democracy!" or "we don't have enough democracy", but they are using the wrong word. They are living in a republic with a democracy but they aren't seriously represented. Representation is the telos of democracy but it does not always achieve it. And that is why everybody should become a reactionary. Only by returning to first principals will everybody get what they really want. There's too much cruft! > Feel free to point to a government that is non-democratic or imposes significant restrictions on democracy that has a free society. China. Singapore. Japan. Korea. All these states have some kind of democracy. Yes, even Communist China does have some democracy. All these states have significant restrictions on it. In the most democratic ones power has been in the same hands about 90% of the time. > Of course it depends on what you mean by "freedom"; if you mean it is "free to move capital around" but not "everyone is free to elect their leaders" then sure, but that is not how I understand the term. Let me help you out. It is certainly the case that the word freedom has become seriously overloaded, much like the word democracy. Most of us see freedom to mean autonomy in this context. In a practical example if the BBC requires you to pay for a TV license because you own a visual display then your freedom is reduced because your number of choices is being narrowed. You have less autonomy because even if you don't watch TV or the BBC channels you are forced to pay for their services anyway. Another practical example is I hear the people in Flint are paying for poisoned water and have no choice in the matter otherwise their houses and belongings may be possessed by the state sending debt collectors.