6 ms·

I disagree with your first thought. I'll say this as someone who is unabashedly a fan of democracy. I love democracy (I would call myself a "democrat" except fo

I disagree with your first thought. I'll say this as someone who is unabashedly a fan of democracy. I love democracy (I would call myself a "democrat" except for the connotation with the American party). I think devaluing democracy exhibits a profound devaluation of freedom. Democracy is more than just casting a vote. Many non-democracies have elections. Democracies are an elegant and fragile relationship between civic will and laws. The outcome of a desire for freedom is democracy. You don't start with democracy or install it, people create it and protect it with laws that protect personal freedoms. Most countries with alternate political systems have citizens with less freedoms and rule by law rather than rule of law: you end up with legalism, like in China. If people feel that democracy is failing them than I would suggest that that exemplifies a shift in profound ideas about freedom that leads to democracy. From the perspective of a relatively functioning democracy, all other political systems should look worse, should look less free.

Bromskloss 9y ago
> I think devaluing democracy exhibits a profound devaluation of freedom. Doesn't that depend on what you would have instead? You could have either a more concentrated power and a less concentrated power.
- mabub24 9y ago
  You could have a more concentrated power, or a less concentrated power. Democracy is remarkably flexible in some ways. Consider the shifts from majority to minority governments, the parliamentary system vs. the presidential system, referendums, etc. But in other ways, it is not. Too concentrated and you easily become technocratic or authoritarian, to unconcentrated and you lose the expression of civic will that emerges from elections that "build", so to speak, to national levels and allow amazing things to be done in democracies. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of parliamentary democracies than presidential. I also believe a sore point for many towards democracy (particularly the idea that democracy is mob rule, or that votes are meaningless) is actually over "first past the post" voting rules. Luckily, we can make democracies better. It's purposely hard to change them, for good reason, but unlike other systems, they are flexible. But, I think if you would rather have a system that is less democratic then that loss of democracy is a loss of freedom at the disproportionate expense of someone else. We call that undemocratic.
  - Bromskloss 9y ago
    Just to clarify, since I see that my comment was a bit unclear: By "have instead" I meant "have instead of democracy". An alternative with more concentrated power, and less freedom, would be having a dictator who decides everything. More free, with less concentrated power, would be an absence of government and everyone following their own wills. (I do not intend this comment as a value judgement one way or the other.)
Veratyr 9y ago
I disagree with most of this. Democracy is merely a form of government. People can be free and not democratically governed. Yes a functional society must have laws but say you have two societies with the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. Are the people in the AI-governed society less free, even when subject to the same rules and restrictions? I think no, they're not less free. That would mean that democracy is important to freedom only if it's the only way to generate that set of rules and I don't think it is. The right dictator can come up with the same rules as a democratic government.
- mabub24 9y ago
  > you have two societies with the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. Are the people in the AI-governed society less free, even when subject to the same rules and restrictions? Yes. Because that's baked into your premise: > the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. These are not the same sets of laws. These are not the same societies. They are not the same systems. Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. They are entirely at the whim of your AI. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. By definition that is not democratic, and I would say, less free. > The right dictator can come up with the same rules as a democratic government. They could, but that would not mean their dictatorship is a democracy or free. It is a profound hypocrisy for a dictator to say they value freedom. If they did, they would not be a dictator.
  - Veratyr 9y ago
    > These are not the same sets of laws. > Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. Sorry, I did miss that part. I'll revise to say "the same laws, save for the means of changing them". The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot realistically change the rules, so losing that technicality makes me no less free. > A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. By definition that is not democratic, and I would say, less free. > They could, but that would not mean their dictatorship is a democracy or free. You keep bringing democracy in where I don't believe it belongs. I'm talking about freedom, not democracy. > It is a profound hypocrisy for a dictator to say they value freedom. I don't think so. A dictator who values freedom can ensure their subjects have it. A person living under the right dictator would have more freedom than one living under the wrong (but still valid) democracy, being freed from the burden of governance. I think where we differ is you value the freedom to influence government, no matter how little above all whereas I value just about everything else more.
hashmal 9y ago
I don't think my first point is incompatible with your comment, in fact I agree with it. Specifically, that the outcome of a desire for freedom is democracy. It's not freedom itself. I still stand with my point, both should not be conflated at the risk of being blind to the shortcomings democracy could have. Democracy can have shortcomings and still be the best system out there, but being aware of them (questioning freedom vs democracy is one way) prevents our systems from drifting away.

Bromskloss 9y ago

> I think devaluing democracy exhibits a profound devaluation of freedom. Doesn't that depend on what you would have instead? You could have either a more concentrated power and a less concentrated power.

mabub24 9y ago
You could have a more concentrated power, or a less concentrated power. Democracy is remarkably flexible in some ways. Consider the shifts from majority to minority governments, the parliamentary system vs. the presidential system, referendums, etc. But in other ways, it is not. Too concentrated and you easily become technocratic or authoritarian, to unconcentrated and you lose the expression of civic will that emerges from elections that "build", so to speak, to national levels and allow amazing things to be done in democracies. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of parliamentary democracies than presidential. I also believe a sore point for many towards democracy (particularly the idea that democracy is mob rule, or that votes are meaningless) is actually over "first past the post" voting rules. Luckily, we can make democracies better. It's purposely hard to change them, for good reason, but unlike other systems, they are flexible. But, I think if you would rather have a system that is less democratic then that loss of democracy is a loss of freedom at the disproportionate expense of someone else. We call that undemocratic.
- Bromskloss 9y ago
  Just to clarify, since I see that my comment was a bit unclear: By "have instead" I meant "have instead of democracy". An alternative with more concentrated power, and less freedom, would be having a dictator who decides everything. More free, with less concentrated power, would be an absence of government and everyone following their own wills. (I do not intend this comment as a value judgement one way or the other.)

Veratyr 9y ago

I disagree with most of this. Democracy is merely a form of government. People can be free and not democratically governed. Yes a functional society must have laws but say you have two societies with the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. Are the people in the AI-governed society less free, even when subject to the same rules and restrictions? I think no, they're not less free. That would mean that democracy is important to freedom only if it's the only way to generate that set of rules and I don't think it is. The right dictator can come up with the same rules as a democratic government.

mabub24 9y ago
> you have two societies with the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. Are the people in the AI-governed society less free, even when subject to the same rules and restrictions? Yes. Because that's baked into your premise: > the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. These are not the same sets of laws. These are not the same societies. They are not the same systems. Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. They are entirely at the whim of your AI. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. By definition that is not democratic, and I would say, less free. > The right dictator can come up with the same rules as a democratic government. They could, but that would not mean their dictatorship is a democracy or free. It is a profound hypocrisy for a dictator to say they value freedom. If they did, they would not be a dictator.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  > These are not the same sets of laws. > Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. Sorry, I did miss that part. I'll revise to say "the same laws, save for the means of changing them". The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot realistically change the rules, so losing that technicality makes me no less free. > A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. By definition that is not democratic, and I would say, less free. > They could, but that would not mean their dictatorship is a democracy or free. You keep bringing democracy in where I don't believe it belongs. I'm talking about freedom, not democracy. > It is a profound hypocrisy for a dictator to say they value freedom. I don't think so. A dictator who values freedom can ensure their subjects have it. A person living under the right dictator would have more freedom than one living under the wrong (but still valid) democracy, being freed from the burden of governance. I think where we differ is you value the freedom to influence government, no matter how little above all whereas I value just about everything else more.

hashmal 9y ago

I don't think my first point is incompatible with your comment, in fact I agree with it. Specifically, that the outcome of a desire for freedom is democracy. It's not freedom itself. I still stand with my point, both should not be conflated at the risk of being blind to the shortcomings democracy could have. Democracy can have shortcomings and still be the best system out there, but being aware of them (questioning freedom vs democracy is one way) prevents our systems from drifting away.