4 ms·

I don't accept your premise, the idea that Democracy is particularly good or special isn't so obvious to me, but it's such a contentious discussion given that t

I don't accept your premise, the idea that Democracy is particularly good or special isn't so obvious to me, but it's such a contentious discussion given that the US has armed itself to the teeth with the concept that it is democratic propagandistically that I can't belabor it. Largely, I would caution you to regain the wisdom of the West's greatest forebears and arm yourself with the knowledge that you don't actually know very much at all.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> the US has armed itself to the teeth with the concept that it is democratic Pure democracy turns into majoritarian, partisan anarchy. We’ve known this since Athens. But it’s forgotten by modern Americans, for whom more democracy is seen as good for its own sake, and that leads to foreign policy mistakes by our elites. That said: countries with democratic elements have clear advantages in economic development, scientific output and tendency towards peace (as well as effective warmaking). We should want more democracy, for moral and self-interested reasons. But your narrow point, that simply promoting more democracy everywhere, all the time is counterproductive, is accurate.
- boringuser2 3y ago
  I'm not happy with your explanation because I feel it demonstrates that even an ostensibly smart, reflective person isn't outside their own cultural bias. I can disprove your conception in about a half of a second by citing the economic, social, political and technological miracle, that no democracy has even come close to replication thereof, that was ... 1930s Germany. FDR was also inspired himself by similar autarchic methods of government, and saw the US through a devastating conflict with a fierce (and even technically and strategically superior) enemy. Then we trip the programming and conversation goes buck wild. Suffice it to say, merely because the West is exemplary and it happens to be in the current thrall of a political order doesn't mean this political order can be credited with the Wests exemplary status.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the economic, social, political and technological miracle, that no democracy has even come close to replication thereof, that was ... 1930s Germany And then what happened? It’s almost a given that autocracies outperform in the short run, given a good leader. Across history, balanced political systems have been at the core of great civilisations. In the West, but also in China (oligarchies), the Indus Valley (actual democracies) and in North America (mostly oligarchies). When strong emperors reigned, the civilisations were flashes in the pan.
    - boringuser2 3y ago
      I was hoping you weren't going to step on this landmine, the fallacy that literal might makes right. The "inevitability of the defeated" is very provincial. Its tempting as you become a great sage and prognosticator simply because you can look at any historical event and say "this was a predictable nd inherently just outcome". History was on the razor's edge as WW2 Germany blitzed through the defenses of most of Europe single-handedly. It was a feat enabled by fierce technical superiority, organizational superiority, even ideological superiority as the people were souped up on national identity. The autarchic form of government in play was a powerful cocktail that enabled Germany to accomplish outsize things in a very short period of time. A similar argument can be made for FDR"s America, as a lesser for would have been defeated at Pearl Harbor. Note that I am not interested in a moral discussion of their government because that is a quick way to cut off critical thought. Obviously, I don't support the murders of any government.
_3u10 3y ago
America is properly described as “Democracy with American characteristics.” As Denis Leary said, you can have a big democracy cake and walk right through the middle of tianemen square, but we got the bombs
davidguetta 3y ago
Sorry I actually meant the Churchill expression "worst system but better than the other"

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> the US has armed itself to the teeth with the concept that it is democratic Pure democracy turns into majoritarian, partisan anarchy. We’ve known this since Athens. But it’s forgotten by modern Americans, for whom more democracy is seen as good for its own sake, and that leads to foreign policy mistakes by our elites. That said: countries with democratic elements have clear advantages in economic development, scientific output and tendency towards peace (as well as effective warmaking). We should want more democracy, for moral and self-interested reasons. But your narrow point, that simply promoting more democracy everywhere, all the time is counterproductive, is accurate.

boringuser2 3y ago
I'm not happy with your explanation because I feel it demonstrates that even an ostensibly smart, reflective person isn't outside their own cultural bias. I can disprove your conception in about a half of a second by citing the economic, social, political and technological miracle, that no democracy has even come close to replication thereof, that was ... 1930s Germany. FDR was also inspired himself by similar autarchic methods of government, and saw the US through a devastating conflict with a fierce (and even technically and strategically superior) enemy. Then we trip the programming and conversation goes buck wild. Suffice it to say, merely because the West is exemplary and it happens to be in the current thrall of a political order doesn't mean this political order can be credited with the Wests exemplary status.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the economic, social, political and technological miracle, that no democracy has even come close to replication thereof, that was ... 1930s Germany And then what happened? It’s almost a given that autocracies outperform in the short run, given a good leader. Across history, balanced political systems have been at the core of great civilisations. In the West, but also in China (oligarchies), the Indus Valley (actual democracies) and in North America (mostly oligarchies). When strong emperors reigned, the civilisations were flashes in the pan.
  - boringuser2 3y ago
    I was hoping you weren't going to step on this landmine, the fallacy that literal might makes right. The "inevitability of the defeated" is very provincial. Its tempting as you become a great sage and prognosticator simply because you can look at any historical event and say "this was a predictable nd inherently just outcome". History was on the razor's edge as WW2 Germany blitzed through the defenses of most of Europe single-handedly. It was a feat enabled by fierce technical superiority, organizational superiority, even ideological superiority as the people were souped up on national identity. The autarchic form of government in play was a powerful cocktail that enabled Germany to accomplish outsize things in a very short period of time. A similar argument can be made for FDR"s America, as a lesser for would have been defeated at Pearl Harbor. Note that I am not interested in a moral discussion of their government because that is a quick way to cut off critical thought. Obviously, I don't support the murders of any government.

_3u10 3y ago

America is properly described as “Democracy with American characteristics.” As Denis Leary said, you can have a big democracy cake and walk right through the middle of tianemen square, but we got the bombs

davidguetta 3y ago

Sorry I actually meant the Churchill expression "worst system but better than the other"