4 ms·

A rational need for democracy for you would be so that I don't govern you according to my wishes. A rational need for democracy for me would be that you don't

by bopbop 8y ago

A rational need for democracy for you would be so that I don't govern you according to my wishes. A rational need for democracy for me would be that you don't govern me according to your wishes. A rational need for democracy for the uyghurs would be that Xi Jumping doesn't govern them according to his wishes. I've always understood this to be what is meant by democracy is the worst form of governance, apart from all the others.

gknoy 8y ago
But ... we currently (in the US) have a direct example of the rulers in power governing the populace in a way which is "not according to the wishes" of roughly half the population. (I think this is a direct result of our 2 party system, as compared to Britain's multiple parties, but I've no idea how to fix it.) Any time you vote on the losing side of an election (whether it's for who to elect, or approve a tax, or legalize (or ban) certain acts, you end up being governed by _every one else's_ wishes. On the bright side, at least in a democracy I mostly have the trust that such changes CAN happen, over time, if enough people come to believe similarly as I do about things.
- liberte82 8y ago
  I was always taught that representative democracy is the rule of the majority, with respect for minority rights. This is where a rational court system comes into play, and why not all questions of rights are left to a referendum. It's what distinguishes it from populism, which is also a rule of the majority, but is a tyranny in that it scapegoats the losing side rather than tries to establish a peaceful way of life for everyone.
- chongli 8y ago
  I think the US is a good example of democracy being undermined, not an inherent failure of democracy. We can have a law against murder but that's not enough: there will still be murder. It takes a whole society working with the shared value that murder is wrong in order to uphold the institution of the law.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
beat 8y ago
Government, democracy or not, generally means I am being governed according to some, but not all of my wishes. It's not an on-off switch, it's a continuum of compromise. Treating it like an on-off switch, my way or the highway on everything, led to much of the weirdness of the 2016 elections in the US.
- bopbop 8y ago
  > Government, democracy or not, generally means I am being governed according to some, but not all of my wishes. The fact that Government is being governed according to some of your wishes is coincidental. It's only in a democracy (or an autocracy where you are the ruling party) where the fact that some of your wishes are the laws is built in to the fabric of the system. The word compromise is an interesting choice - a comprimise is an agreement between several parties in which all sides agree on a less then optimal solution for themselves in favour of a resolution the group can agree to. It's essentially a democracy - it's certainly the basis for participatory democracy. I'm not sure where the on-off switch analogy is coming from - it's definitely not my opinion - hence the Churchhill comparison. Also, on-off seems very binary. On a similar note, I would say that the comparison to the 2016 US Elections feels a little simplified - being given a choice of two parites doesn't mean you are being given a choice representing your wishes. At best, it can mean you are being given two options from a range on a spectrum, but even then the spectrum and gap between political parties is normally more then a single issue. The American Left, for instance, would in Europe be on a fairly right wing part of the spectrum.
  - beat 8y ago
    Nah. All sorts of things are done right by governments that I find distasteful and wouldn't vote for. For a coarse example, they're not abolishing laws against murder. That's good, because I want murder to be illegal. The area of agreement between the two parties in the US is much broader than the areas of disagreement. But I was talking about compromise. And an unwillingness to tolerate compromise in our leaders was characteristic of the 2016 election - that's how Trump won the GOP nomination, and how Bernie put up a hard fight against Hillary Clinton. Bernie doesn't compromise on anything (he's not even a Democrat!), and most of his supporters find that admirable. Hillary compromises on everything, and those same supporters find it shameful, even though she's the one with an actual record of getting actual things done. As a Democrat, I liked both the Democratic candidates (for different reasons), but can imagine a candidate I would have liked much better - one closer to my personal values. By voting for one, I compromised. I find Trump to be a disturbing human being who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near actual power. Nonetheless, his presidency is not the end of my world, and I sometimes even admire him (the same way I'd admire a child who killed their parents and then begged for mercy as an orphan, but admiration nonetheless).

by bopbop 8y ago

gknoy 8y ago

But ... we currently (in the US) have a direct example of the rulers in power governing the populace in a way which is "not according to the wishes" of roughly half the population. (I think this is a direct result of our 2 party system, as compared to Britain's multiple parties, but I've no idea how to fix it.) Any time you vote on the losing side of an election (whether it's for who to elect, or approve a tax, or legalize (or ban) certain acts, you end up being governed by _every one else's_ wishes. On the bright side, at least in a democracy I mostly have the trust that such changes CAN happen, over time, if enough people come to believe similarly as I do about things.

liberte82 8y ago
I was always taught that representative democracy is the rule of the majority, with respect for minority rights. This is where a rational court system comes into play, and why not all questions of rights are left to a referendum. It's what distinguishes it from populism, which is also a rule of the majority, but is a tyranny in that it scapegoats the losing side rather than tries to establish a peaceful way of life for everyone.
chongli 8y ago
I think the US is a good example of democracy being undermined, not an inherent failure of democracy. We can have a law against murder but that's not enough: there will still be murder. It takes a whole society working with the shared value that murder is wrong in order to uphold the institution of the law.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

beat 8y ago

Government, democracy or not, generally means I am being governed according to some, but not all of my wishes. It's not an on-off switch, it's a continuum of compromise. Treating it like an on-off switch, my way or the highway on everything, led to much of the weirdness of the 2016 elections in the US.

bopbop 8y ago
> Government, democracy or not, generally means I am being governed according to some, but not all of my wishes. The fact that Government is being governed according to some of your wishes is coincidental. It's only in a democracy (or an autocracy where you are the ruling party) where the fact that some of your wishes are the laws is built in to the fabric of the system. The word compromise is an interesting choice - a comprimise is an agreement between several parties in which all sides agree on a less then optimal solution for themselves in favour of a resolution the group can agree to. It's essentially a democracy - it's certainly the basis for participatory democracy. I'm not sure where the on-off switch analogy is coming from - it's definitely not my opinion - hence the Churchhill comparison. Also, on-off seems very binary. On a similar note, I would say that the comparison to the 2016 US Elections feels a little simplified - being given a choice of two parites doesn't mean you are being given a choice representing your wishes. At best, it can mean you are being given two options from a range on a spectrum, but even then the spectrum and gap between political parties is normally more then a single issue. The American Left, for instance, would in Europe be on a fairly right wing part of the spectrum.
- beat 8y ago
  Nah. All sorts of things are done right by governments that I find distasteful and wouldn't vote for. For a coarse example, they're not abolishing laws against murder. That's good, because I want murder to be illegal. The area of agreement between the two parties in the US is much broader than the areas of disagreement. But I was talking about compromise. And an unwillingness to tolerate compromise in our leaders was characteristic of the 2016 election - that's how Trump won the GOP nomination, and how Bernie put up a hard fight against Hillary Clinton. Bernie doesn't compromise on anything (he's not even a Democrat!), and most of his supporters find that admirable. Hillary compromises on everything, and those same supporters find it shameful, even though she's the one with an actual record of getting actual things done. As a Democrat, I liked both the Democratic candidates (for different reasons), but can imagine a candidate I would have liked much better - one closer to my personal values. By voting for one, I compromised. I find Trump to be a disturbing human being who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near actual power. Nonetheless, his presidency is not the end of my world, and I sometimes even admire him (the same way I'd admire a child who killed their parents and then begged for mercy as an orphan, but admiration nonetheless).