5 ms·

> Gang crime seem to be a common weakness of democracies. I've read many histories and that hasn't been a problem. I've lived all my life in democracies and it

> Gang crime seem to be a common weakness of democracies. I've read many histories and that hasn't been a problem. I've lived all my life in democracies and it's never been a problem anywhere that I've lived. I also don't see a correlation. Countries with high levels of corruption, of every form of government, have organized crime problems. Haiti has a very serious gang problem but never much democracy. You might not read about gangs as much in dictatorships because, first, the government is a gang - they are a gang that took over government. And also there's no free press. And on the other side of the correlation, modern democracies are the safest, most prosperous places in the history of humanity. And they have a free press to report on everything. Nothing is perfect, of course; but compare them to the alternative (and to history), not to the almighty. Also, the premise that democracy is optional is irrational. If the people don't get to select their leaders, who the f- does? Who will do better? If they are so clearly better, why not have a vote?

blackhawkC17 3y ago
Democracy has largely worked and ushered in widespread economic and social development in the West. The issue is that many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West. Many countries are still stuck in a culture of tribalism and corruption and keep voting horrible leaders (the vast majority of Africa and a few in Asia and Eastern Europe). But I agree with you that people should have a say in who leads them. If they keep voting horrid leaders, that’s a problem they brought on themselves.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West That's an old excuse of dictators, one of a series of obviously self-serving justifications for their taking power and oppressing others. Consider the cultures worldwide where democracy has thrived: The 'West' (Western Europe/US/Canada), Eastern Europe, South Asia, East Asia (S Korea, Japan, Taiwan - the wealthiest part of China by far, per capita, despite China's constant attacks on them), Costa Rica, South America (Brazil, Chile, others), places in W. Africa (Benin, Senegal), E Africa (Kenya), etc etc. In fact, democracy's record is entirely the opposite. It's by far the greatest development in human history; and somehow, instead of pulling their weight, doing their part as our ancestors did, who sacrificed so much, so many are dallying with power-hungry dictators.
  - blackhawkC17 3y ago
    I agreed with you in my statement. Democracy works excellently when done well. The problem is that figuring out how to make democracy work is one of the hardest tasks on earth (I’m living in a country suffering from terrible corruption and tribalism under democracy). Yet, I still said that I prefer a system where people choose their leaders…it’s on them to make it work.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > figuring out how to make democracy work is one of the hardest tasks on earth Lots and lots of places have done it. But yes, it can be difficult - it's up to the people, like everything else. If they want it, they will have it.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        > If they want it, they will have it. More like if they are lucky to have above subsistence living, and they (specifically the men) have sufficient time and are smart enough to organize and, eventually, over generations, create a culture of democracy and trust, AND a foreign power does not come in to meddle with progress or perhaps put in their own dictator, THEN “they” will have it. I would even go so far as to say the process has to be started by consolidating power to one tribe, and then that tribe eventually adopts it. If you walk into a land with multiple competing tribes, and you enforce democracy on it, it will usually not work because there is insufficient trust/alliance amongst the people of the country.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        Do you have some empirical basis for all of this? (I don't at my fingertips - it would be great if you do!) Let's name the elephant in the room: It's trendy to talk down democracy these days, by the megalomaniacs who think they should rule the world and be unbound by others, by dictators, by the right wing in the US and other places which wants to impose its vision on everyone else. IMHO it's children toying with matches while the house is about to be bulldozed. We'd better start standing up for democracy soon. In particular: > specifically the men Why the men? At least one well-known theory is that the education and development of women is tightly correlated to overall development. > If you walk into a land with multiple competing tribes, and you enforce democracy on it, it will usually not work because there is insufficient trust/alliance amongst the people of the country. The problem is 'enforcing democracy' on anyone; they need to want it because they need to do it themselves. Outsiders can only do a small amount of the work. Democracy is designed for and works better (than alternatives) for those situations: For example, the US at its founding was in many respects 13 separate countries; they sometimes had different currencies, fought battles against each other, etc. A democratic mechanism allows them to resolve those differences by votes and laws instead of by violence. Another problem with 'enforced' democratic mechanisms, IMHO, is that they drop a default structure on the country rather than one created for their political situation. For example, Iraq used a parliamentary democracy, where perhaps, with the great division between Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite populations, something that structured power around three 'states' might have worked better. It doesn't create a nirvana; it can't make people agree nor magically create a wealthy, developed nation, but it perhaps makes the best of what you have. It does create peace and freedom and rule of law.
ta8903 3y ago
I think you misunderstood the parent post, they didn't say democracies had a common gang crime problem or that there is a correlation between gangs and democracies, they just said democracies don't do very well in dealing with gangs.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Maybe, but do the outcomes differ or not?

blackhawkC17 3y ago

Democracy has largely worked and ushered in widespread economic and social development in the West. The issue is that many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West. Many countries are still stuck in a culture of tribalism and corruption and keep voting horrible leaders (the vast majority of Africa and a few in Asia and Eastern Europe). But I agree with you that people should have a say in who leads them. If they keep voting horrid leaders, that’s a problem they brought on themselves.

wolverine876 3y ago
> many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West That's an old excuse of dictators, one of a series of obviously self-serving justifications for their taking power and oppressing others. Consider the cultures worldwide where democracy has thrived: The 'West' (Western Europe/US/Canada), Eastern Europe, South Asia, East Asia (S Korea, Japan, Taiwan - the wealthiest part of China by far, per capita, despite China's constant attacks on them), Costa Rica, South America (Brazil, Chile, others), places in W. Africa (Benin, Senegal), E Africa (Kenya), etc etc. In fact, democracy's record is entirely the opposite. It's by far the greatest development in human history; and somehow, instead of pulling their weight, doing their part as our ancestors did, who sacrificed so much, so many are dallying with power-hungry dictators.
- blackhawkC17 3y ago
  I agreed with you in my statement. Democracy works excellently when done well. The problem is that figuring out how to make democracy work is one of the hardest tasks on earth (I’m living in a country suffering from terrible corruption and tribalism under democracy). Yet, I still said that I prefer a system where people choose their leaders…it’s on them to make it work.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > figuring out how to make democracy work is one of the hardest tasks on earth Lots and lots of places have done it. But yes, it can be difficult - it's up to the people, like everything else. If they want it, they will have it.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      > If they want it, they will have it. More like if they are lucky to have above subsistence living, and they (specifically the men) have sufficient time and are smart enough to organize and, eventually, over generations, create a culture of democracy and trust, AND a foreign power does not come in to meddle with progress or perhaps put in their own dictator, THEN “they” will have it. I would even go so far as to say the process has to be started by consolidating power to one tribe, and then that tribe eventually adopts it. If you walk into a land with multiple competing tribes, and you enforce democracy on it, it will usually not work because there is insufficient trust/alliance amongst the people of the country.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Do you have some empirical basis for all of this? (I don't at my fingertips - it would be great if you do!) Let's name the elephant in the room: It's trendy to talk down democracy these days, by the megalomaniacs who think they should rule the world and be unbound by others, by dictators, by the right wing in the US and other places which wants to impose its vision on everyone else. IMHO it's children toying with matches while the house is about to be bulldozed. We'd better start standing up for democracy soon. In particular: > specifically the men Why the men? At least one well-known theory is that the education and development of women is tightly correlated to overall development. > If you walk into a land with multiple competing tribes, and you enforce democracy on it, it will usually not work because there is insufficient trust/alliance amongst the people of the country. The problem is 'enforcing democracy' on anyone; they need to want it because they need to do it themselves. Outsiders can only do a small amount of the work. Democracy is designed for and works better (than alternatives) for those situations: For example, the US at its founding was in many respects 13 separate countries; they sometimes had different currencies, fought battles against each other, etc. A democratic mechanism allows them to resolve those differences by votes and laws instead of by violence. Another problem with 'enforced' democratic mechanisms, IMHO, is that they drop a default structure on the country rather than one created for their political situation. For example, Iraq used a parliamentary democracy, where perhaps, with the great division between Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite populations, something that structured power around three 'states' might have worked better. It doesn't create a nirvana; it can't make people agree nor magically create a wealthy, developed nation, but it perhaps makes the best of what you have. It does create peace and freedom and rule of law.

ta8903 3y ago

I think you misunderstood the parent post, they didn't say democracies had a common gang crime problem or that there is a correlation between gangs and democracies, they just said democracies don't do very well in dealing with gangs.

wolverine876 3y ago
Maybe, but do the outcomes differ or not?