3 ms·

I liked that the article focuses on the important distinction between democracy and liberal democracy. There are lots of places I find democracy conflated with

I liked that the article focuses on the important distinction between democracy and liberal democracy. There are lots of places I find democracy conflated with a "free country". It's limits on government power (regardless of what a majority want) and the ability for the people to kick out the current government that imo are most necessary for a free country. The other details don't really matter if you don't have these.

2ion 5y ago
This is a very important point. Whereas there is "convergence" between for example the penal codes of states commonly referred to as "democratic", what is nothing in one country might be a crime to just say in the other. In fact, comparative political science has only some veeeeery basic "features" that make them say it's "a democracy"; there is a lot of freedom to tip the scales in one direction or another. Also, commonly overserved is the notion among elites that some democracy is "too much" (for example, no referendums in core governance questions).
VictorPath 5y ago
> It's limits on government power (regardless of what a majority want) and the ability for the people to kick out the current government that imo are most necessary for a free country. The other details don't really matter if you don't have these. So a country where the people can't change their own government are what you call liberalism and democracy. Got it.
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  I think that should be read as > (limits on government power) and (the ability for the people to kick out the current government) not > > limits on (government power) and (the ability for the people to kick out the current government)
  - version_five 5y ago
    Yes I meant the first one, I did not expect it to get misread the other way
hunterb123 5y ago
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. You need checks in place against the government for that, regardless of the majority. A constitution is a contract between the government and its people how they agree to be governed. You weren't specific in your criticism so I'm not sure what you take issue with.
- version_five 5y ago
  > You weren't specific in your criticism so I'm not sure what you take issue with Why do you need to take issue with something?
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Context matters and you didn't specify what "limits on government power" you were talking about. Constitutional limits don't conflict with democracy, they preserve it. If you were talking about some other sort of limitation an example would be nice.
avgcorrection 5y ago
Liberalism and democracy are two conflicting tendencies. This is acknowledged in the literature. The most important liberty under liberalism is the liberty to pursue property, and (or as Aristotle claimed) democracy threatens that since democracy leans more towards egalitarianism. The most important rights are the negative liberties of the rich. Which of course are universal on paper. The democracy part is a concession to popular pressure and also to serve as a unifying slogan, since democracy is valued even higher than liberalism in polite discourse. But it’s really just a thin veneer. All it takes is one vote for the “wrong candidate” or for someone to read the first three paragraphs on The Republic on Wikipedia for that high-minded ideal to go out the window. Then the specter of populism looms.

2ion 5y ago

This is a very important point. Whereas there is "convergence" between for example the penal codes of states commonly referred to as "democratic", what is nothing in one country might be a crime to just say in the other. In fact, comparative political science has only some veeeeery basic "features" that make them say it's "a democracy"; there is a lot of freedom to tip the scales in one direction or another. Also, commonly overserved is the notion among elites that some democracy is "too much" (for example, no referendums in core governance questions).

VictorPath 5y ago

> It's limits on government power (regardless of what a majority want) and the ability for the people to kick out the current government that imo are most necessary for a free country. The other details don't really matter if you don't have these. So a country where the people can't change their own government are what you call liberalism and democracy. Got it.

frosted-flakes 5y ago
I think that should be read as > (limits on government power) and (the ability for the people to kick out the current government) not > > limits on (government power) and (the ability for the people to kick out the current government)
- version_five 5y ago
  Yes I meant the first one, I did not expect it to get misread the other way

hunterb123 5y ago

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. You need checks in place against the government for that, regardless of the majority. A constitution is a contract between the government and its people how they agree to be governed. You weren't specific in your criticism so I'm not sure what you take issue with.

version_five 5y ago
> You weren't specific in your criticism so I'm not sure what you take issue with Why do you need to take issue with something?
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Context matters and you didn't specify what "limits on government power" you were talking about. Constitutional limits don't conflict with democracy, they preserve it. If you were talking about some other sort of limitation an example would be nice.

avgcorrection 5y ago

Liberalism and democracy are two conflicting tendencies. This is acknowledged in the literature. The most important liberty under liberalism is the liberty to pursue property, and (or as Aristotle claimed) democracy threatens that since democracy leans more towards egalitarianism. The most important rights are the negative liberties of the rich. Which of course are universal on paper. The democracy part is a concession to popular pressure and also to serve as a unifying slogan, since democracy is valued even higher than liberalism in polite discourse. But it’s really just a thin veneer. All it takes is one vote for the “wrong candidate” or for someone to read the first three paragraphs on The Republic on Wikipedia for that high-minded ideal to go out the window. Then the specter of populism looms.