3 ms·

"Openness and the exchange of ideas" is not something that developing countries are known for, though - and not something that would be promoted by having gover

"Openness and the exchange of ideas" is not something that developing countries are known for, though - and not something that would be promoted by having government-sponsored "propagandists and bots" around, either! In general, while democracy in the sense of having regular elections might be a bit overrated (as shown, e.g. by the failure to "export" it in places like Iraq!), basic freedom, openness and widespread awareness about the values of a "commercial society" (sometimes called "bourgeois values") are extremely important and the closest thing we know of to a recipe for successful development and enduring wealth.

raxxorrax 7y ago
But the failure of democracy in Iraq isn't due to systemic failure of democracy. That can quickly be falsified. It was due to interest groups. Not differentiating here is a mental short circuit. It would have failed with any other form of governance. A democracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Autocratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point.
- cjslep 7y ago
  > A democracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Autocratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point. This is a powerful manifestation of implied bias. This and the whole preceding sentence make it all seem weirdly propaganda-y. Like trying to say "no government will succeed forever" and yet also the doublethink that democracy is special, despite autocratic rule dominating human history. For example, consider the opposite and whether it sounds "normal": > Autocracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Democratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point. Edit: I am pro-democracy but have no delusions that it is free (as in beer), natural (as in humans will naturally tend towards it), nor easy (as in effort is required to maintain it). It's none of the above.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    True, I do have a clear bias for democracy. Additionally, democracies excel in freedom, wealth, safety and stability against any other form of government in today's world. And then some. Let me take a guess: You are living in a first world country and you are a bit unsatisfied with your life? If the answer is yes, I extracted that solely from bias. Helpful, isn't it?
    - cjslep 7y ago
      Your guess is only half right (if not using the Cold War term for first world and instead using it purely in terms of economic development). I am very happy with my life. I'm not sure what the line about "helpfulness" is talking about (bias or democracy), thanks to the ambiguities of the English language.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- pjc50 7y ago
  > It was due to interest groups Democracy is competing interest groups. Just that they're supposed to compete nonviolently for the favour of public opinion. Iraq should be a good lesson, though. Far too little effort has gone into understanding and explaining what was intended and how it failed, including what the weaknesses of good intent were. To me, it looks like the problem was trying to airdrop "democracy" consisting only of voting, without much thought given to parties, media, class structure, ethnic division, and economic crisis.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    True, but in this context I meant interest groups trying to consolidate their power which they felt would be threatened through democracy. Understandable, if you know about the religious minority that ruled the country. But making a statement about the viability of democracy because Iraq struggled to form a stable government is complete nonsense.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      > interest groups trying to consolidate their power which they felt would be threatened through democracy. Understandable, if you know about the religious minority that ruled the country. This could apply to a surprisingly large number of Western countries in the 20th century. Or the whole US "voter suppression" debate.
- NotAnEconomist 7y ago
  Empirically, autocratic regimes can last longer than democracies -- but there have been many more tried, so it's not clear if we're just witnessing expected outliers. But the Roman empire lasted fifteen hundred years, while the republic only lasted five hundred -- as a classic example.

raxxorrax 7y ago

But the failure of democracy in Iraq isn't due to systemic failure of democracy. That can quickly be falsified. It was due to interest groups. Not differentiating here is a mental short circuit. It would have failed with any other form of governance. A democracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Autocratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point.

cjslep 7y ago
> A democracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Autocratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point. This is a powerful manifestation of implied bias. This and the whole preceding sentence make it all seem weirdly propaganda-y. Like trying to say "no government will succeed forever" and yet also the doublethink that democracy is special, despite autocratic rule dominating human history. For example, consider the opposite and whether it sounds "normal": > Autocracy isn't guaranteed to succeed, like any form of governance. Democratic regimes however are destined to fail at some point. Edit: I am pro-democracy but have no delusions that it is free (as in beer), natural (as in humans will naturally tend towards it), nor easy (as in effort is required to maintain it). It's none of the above.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  True, I do have a clear bias for democracy. Additionally, democracies excel in freedom, wealth, safety and stability against any other form of government in today's world. And then some. Let me take a guess: You are living in a first world country and you are a bit unsatisfied with your life? If the answer is yes, I extracted that solely from bias. Helpful, isn't it?
  - cjslep 7y ago
    Your guess is only half right (if not using the Cold War term for first world and instead using it purely in terms of economic development). I am very happy with my life. I'm not sure what the line about "helpfulness" is talking about (bias or democracy), thanks to the ambiguities of the English language.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
pjc50 7y ago
> It was due to interest groups Democracy is competing interest groups. Just that they're supposed to compete nonviolently for the favour of public opinion. Iraq should be a good lesson, though. Far too little effort has gone into understanding and explaining what was intended and how it failed, including what the weaknesses of good intent were. To me, it looks like the problem was trying to airdrop "democracy" consisting only of voting, without much thought given to parties, media, class structure, ethnic division, and economic crisis.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  True, but in this context I meant interest groups trying to consolidate their power which they felt would be threatened through democracy. Understandable, if you know about the religious minority that ruled the country. But making a statement about the viability of democracy because Iraq struggled to form a stable government is complete nonsense.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > interest groups trying to consolidate their power which they felt would be threatened through democracy. Understandable, if you know about the religious minority that ruled the country. This could apply to a surprisingly large number of Western countries in the 20th century. Or the whole US "voter suppression" debate.
NotAnEconomist 7y ago
Empirically, autocratic regimes can last longer than democracies -- but there have been many more tried, so it's not clear if we're just witnessing expected outliers. But the Roman empire lasted fifteen hundred years, while the republic only lasted five hundred -- as a classic example.