3 ms·

> (Of course, "democratic" here has to be understood as including broadly liberal/freedom-promoting norms. Electoral politics on its own is beside the point.)

> (Of course, "democratic" here has to be understood as including broadly liberal/freedom-promoting norms. Electoral politics on its own is beside the point.) In other words, "democracy leads to less war" so long as by "democracy" you actually mean the polar opposite of actual democracy, which is electoral politics. It's orthogonal to, and frequently opposed to, those "liberal/freedom-promoting norms" which you correctly observe are actually responsible for peace. If you want peace you can't just introduce "democracy" in the form of elections and voting—you have to change the culture to respect natural rights and value freedom even when doing so in a particular situation may be contrary to popular sentiment. In a society which endorses "liberal/freedom-promoting norms" the influence of democracy is minimal as power resides with free individuals making decisions for themselves and not the collective, and it makes little difference whether the few remaining issues—which naturally exclude anything which might infringe on individuals' natural rights—are decided by direct vote, elected representatives, or self-appointed leader(s).

zozbot234 5y ago
> few remaining issues The issues which are subject to political decision making are anything but "few" or "unimportant". Even in the most freedom-loving society, you're going to need some mechanism to discipline policy makers when they make bad decisions. Electoral politics is one convenient way of doing that - it's anything but perfect, but by and large it's what we're all familiar with.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > Even in the most freedom-loving society, you're going to need some mechanism to discipline policy makers when they make bad decisions. The point was that there wouldn't be very much in the way of "policy" in a society grounded in a culture of liberty and freedom. A "government" which is bound to respect everyone's natural rights at all times is really nothing more than a corporation or co-op (either for-profit or non-profit). It can't levy taxes or impose regulations on non-members, or force anyone to become or remain a member against their will. Whatever "policies" it might decide on, it can't compel anyone else to follow them. The way to "discipline policy makers" in such a system is simply to cancel your membership, and perhaps switch to a competing organization—and this option is available to you regardless of how the organization makes its decisions. To be clear, I'm not opposed to employing democracy in this way, just as co-ops may have elected leaders or shareholders may vote on proposals offered by a board of directors. There are times to seek consensus and work through issues as a group, just as there are times for clear, unified leadership. But if someone wants to sign up with an organization with an "autocratic" leader who doesn't care about anyone else's opinion, that's fine too—provided they don't force their system on anyone who doesn't choose to follow them.

zozbot234 5y ago

> few remaining issues The issues which are subject to political decision making are anything but "few" or "unimportant". Even in the most freedom-loving society, you're going to need some mechanism to discipline policy makers when they make bad decisions. Electoral politics is one convenient way of doing that - it's anything but perfect, but by and large it's what we're all familiar with.

nybble41 5y ago
> Even in the most freedom-loving society, you're going to need some mechanism to discipline policy makers when they make bad decisions. The point was that there wouldn't be very much in the way of "policy" in a society grounded in a culture of liberty and freedom. A "government" which is bound to respect everyone's natural rights at all times is really nothing more than a corporation or co-op (either for-profit or non-profit). It can't levy taxes or impose regulations on non-members, or force anyone to become or remain a member against their will. Whatever "policies" it might decide on, it can't compel anyone else to follow them. The way to "discipline policy makers" in such a system is simply to cancel your membership, and perhaps switch to a competing organization—and this option is available to you regardless of how the organization makes its decisions. To be clear, I'm not opposed to employing democracy in this way, just as co-ops may have elected leaders or shareholders may vote on proposals offered by a board of directors. There are times to seek consensus and work through issues as a group, just as there are times for clear, unified leadership. But if someone wants to sign up with an organization with an "autocratic" leader who doesn't care about anyone else's opinion, that's fine too—provided they don't force their system on anyone who doesn't choose to follow them.