5 ms·

European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America. (and without the notorious US-made military eq

European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America. (and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches) And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-communism, it should be effective *Liberal Democracy*. So, to be part, 1. Compulsory ICC membership - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel. 2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: you better watch your ways if you want in. 3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion. Not one more *new* military equipment purchase from the US, (or other non-qualifying nations). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel. Hey, it would be actually great for their economy! Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan. US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member. Same applies for prospective new members. Not interested? Bye, your problem.

rayiner 2y ago
The term “liberal democracy” is newspeak. What you mean is the opposite of democracy—a society run by judges and administrators that overrule democratically supported measures that offend their liberal ideologies.
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  Newspeak is discarding the post (Yalta and) Universal Declaration of Human Rights global consensus. The use of the expression "Liberal Democracy" is just to counter the indeed newspeak self-named "Illiberal Democracy" - you, and everyone, knows very well today what that is. And no one is above the law, including elected leaders. Liberalism, in this sense, is about guaranteeing universal freedoms, not imposing ideology. Your subtext actually counters: - Equality before the law; - Free speech, assembly and religion; - Protection from arbitrary (state) power, as due process is actually a thing. Labeling these principles as "ideological" is misleading. Liberal democracy ensures: - Civil rights movements (e.g., LGBTQ+, racial equality) succeed through debate and persuasion, not judicial fiat. - Property rights and independent courts attract investment and foster prosperity (e.g., Denmark vs. Venezuela). You seem to forget that Liberal Democracy’s constraints on power are openly debated and codified in constitutions—unlike autocratic regimes that manipulate language (e.g., Russia’s "managed democracy"). Finally, Liberal Democracy is not a bug but a feature: - It prevents "51% oppression" (majorities violating minority rights / rule of the mob). - It enables peaceful power transitions (e.g., Biden to Trump in 2025, vs the reverse). - It fosters long-term stability by balancing popular will with rule of law.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > discarding the post-Yalta and Universal Declaration of Human Rights global consensus That was never a “consensus.” It was a quasi-religious moral framework imposed on the world by Wilsonian elites who turned out to be minorities even within their own western countries. Those ideas have little purchase in India or China or Bangladesh, or even Poland or, these days, Florida. > And no one is above the law, including elected leaders. If you implement that concept literally, you have a society where the real power is held by judges and prosecutors who interpret the law. That’s not democracy. > Liberalism, in this sense, is about guaranteeing universal freedoms, not imposing ideology. What “freedom” entails reflects ideology. Thais don’t agree with Americans don’t agree with Germans, for example, about what constitutes “free speech.” Not only that, “freedom” is such a broad and vague concept that if you empower unelected philosopher kings to decide what constitutes “freedom” or not you displace democracy. To use one specific example: > ensures: - Civil rights movements (e.g., LGBTQ+, racial equality) succeed through debate and persuasion, not judicial fiat At least in the U.S., the proponents of supposed “liberal democracy” achieved both through judicial fiat, overriding electoral majorities. And they continue to press ideas that are broadly unpopular with voters (such as affirmative action) through unaccountable bureaucracies. I expect you’ll see the same thing happen with immigration issues in Western Europe. That is the predictable result of the whole concept of “liberal democracy.” Once you declare that major issues are too important for the political process then ideologues have tremendous incentive to reframe every issue in those terms.
    - DrNosferatu 2y ago
      What quasi-religious framework imposed by Wilsonian elites? Know your History better: The UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 with 48 votes in favor, including nations from Latin America (e.g., Mexico, Brazil), the Middle East (e.g., Lebanon, Iran), and Asia (e.g., India, Philippines). Only eight countries abstained (Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia, South Africa). Hardly Wilsonian. More! Actually the Indian delegation insisted on gender-neutral language: “all human beings” instead of “all men”. Clearly it was a global compromise, not a Western diktat. As for "societies run by judges" - this fundamentally misunderstands Constitutional Democracy. Judges interpret laws created by elected bodies within constitutional frameworks that were themselves democratically approved. They protect the system's integrity, not override it. When courts strike down laws violating minority rights, they're functioning as intended - preventing democratic processes from being used to undermine Democracy itself. This isn't anti-democratic; it's ensuring democracy remains sustainable. Your example about Florida is telling. When democratic backsliding occurs, it's not "freedom from liberalism" but rather the dismantling of crucial democratic guardrails. True democracy requires both electoral processes and institutional protections. On LGBTQ+ rights and affirmative action - these weren't imposed solely by courts. They emerged through complex interactions between social movements, legislative actions, and judicial decisions. The courts didn't act in isolation but responded to evolving societal understanding of constitutional principles - or should we go back to segregation? Your alternative to liberal democracy isn't "more democracy" - it would be a vulnerable "elected regime" that can be dismantled from within (ever heard about a certain election in 1933?). History shows that without institutional protections, electoral systems alone can facilitate their own destruction. Liberal Democracy isn't perfect, but it's proven more resilient and just than any alternative system of governance yet devised. Indeed: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  Interesting how your critique of 'philosopher kings' only applies to (supposedly liberal) judges protecting rights, never to leaders eliminating them.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Of course, assuming the leader is elected. Rights are a restriction on democratic action. In a secular government, we can’t posit the existence of supernatural law. The only legitimate “rights” derive from two substantively neutral procedural axioms: 1) there’s a hierarchy of law; and 2) the electorate is bound by written law until they vote to change it according to agreed-on procedures. So you can have constitutional “rights” that bind future transient majorities unless the higher law is changed. But there is no legitimate basis to create new “rights” or expand the scope of agreed-upon “rights” based on philosophical or other considerations. That’s just Iran’s Guardian Council concept tethered to a different moralistic philosophy.
    - DrNosferatu 2y ago
      Your stance contains yet another fatal contradiction. You accept that constitutional rights can "bind future transient majorities" through a hierarchy of law, but then claim any interpretation of those rights is illegitimate "philosophical consideration." This makes no sense - written rights require interpretation to have any meaning. The right to "free speech" doesn't self-define what counts as speech or what restrictions are reasonable. You're creating an artificial distinction between "expanding" rights and protecting them. When courts stopped governments from banning internet speech, were they "creating new rights" or protecting the existing right to free expression in a new context? When they applied equal protection to new forms of discrimination, were they "expanding rights" or fulfilling their original purpose? Your comparison to Iran's Guardian Council continues to miss the mark. Constitutional courts interpret democratically-established texts through transparent legal reasoning, subject to democratic override. Iran's clerics impose religious doctrine with no democratic foundation or accountability. These aren't remotely comparable. What you frame as "philosophical considerations" are actually necessary legal analysis of how established rights apply to new situations. Without this, constitutional rights become empty words, unable to serve their democratic purpose of protecting minority participation and preventing majority overreach. The irony is that your position would create exactly what you claim to oppose - a system where rights mean whatever temporary majorities say they mean, making them no rights at all. That's not democracy - it's just mob rule with extra steps.

rayiner 2y ago

The term “liberal democracy” is newspeak. What you mean is the opposite of democracy—a society run by judges and administrators that overrule democratically supported measures that offend their liberal ideologies.

DrNosferatu 2y ago
Newspeak is discarding the post (Yalta and) Universal Declaration of Human Rights global consensus. The use of the expression "Liberal Democracy" is just to counter the indeed newspeak self-named "Illiberal Democracy" - you, and everyone, knows very well today what that is. And no one is above the law, including elected leaders. Liberalism, in this sense, is about guaranteeing universal freedoms, not imposing ideology. Your subtext actually counters: - Equality before the law; - Free speech, assembly and religion; - Protection from arbitrary (state) power, as due process is actually a thing. Labeling these principles as "ideological" is misleading. Liberal democracy ensures: - Civil rights movements (e.g., LGBTQ+, racial equality) succeed through debate and persuasion, not judicial fiat. - Property rights and independent courts attract investment and foster prosperity (e.g., Denmark vs. Venezuela). You seem to forget that Liberal Democracy’s constraints on power are openly debated and codified in constitutions—unlike autocratic regimes that manipulate language (e.g., Russia’s "managed democracy"). Finally, Liberal Democracy is not a bug but a feature: - It prevents "51% oppression" (majorities violating minority rights / rule of the mob). - It enables peaceful power transitions (e.g., Biden to Trump in 2025, vs the reverse). - It fosters long-term stability by balancing popular will with rule of law.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > discarding the post-Yalta and Universal Declaration of Human Rights global consensus That was never a “consensus.” It was a quasi-religious moral framework imposed on the world by Wilsonian elites who turned out to be minorities even within their own western countries. Those ideas have little purchase in India or China or Bangladesh, or even Poland or, these days, Florida. > And no one is above the law, including elected leaders. If you implement that concept literally, you have a society where the real power is held by judges and prosecutors who interpret the law. That’s not democracy. > Liberalism, in this sense, is about guaranteeing universal freedoms, not imposing ideology. What “freedom” entails reflects ideology. Thais don’t agree with Americans don’t agree with Germans, for example, about what constitutes “free speech.” Not only that, “freedom” is such a broad and vague concept that if you empower unelected philosopher kings to decide what constitutes “freedom” or not you displace democracy. To use one specific example: > ensures: - Civil rights movements (e.g., LGBTQ+, racial equality) succeed through debate and persuasion, not judicial fiat At least in the U.S., the proponents of supposed “liberal democracy” achieved both through judicial fiat, overriding electoral majorities. And they continue to press ideas that are broadly unpopular with voters (such as affirmative action) through unaccountable bureaucracies. I expect you’ll see the same thing happen with immigration issues in Western Europe. That is the predictable result of the whole concept of “liberal democracy.” Once you declare that major issues are too important for the political process then ideologues have tremendous incentive to reframe every issue in those terms.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    What quasi-religious framework imposed by Wilsonian elites? Know your History better: The UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 with 48 votes in favor, including nations from Latin America (e.g., Mexico, Brazil), the Middle East (e.g., Lebanon, Iran), and Asia (e.g., India, Philippines). Only eight countries abstained (Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia, South Africa). Hardly Wilsonian. More! Actually the Indian delegation insisted on gender-neutral language: “all human beings” instead of “all men”. Clearly it was a global compromise, not a Western diktat. As for "societies run by judges" - this fundamentally misunderstands Constitutional Democracy. Judges interpret laws created by elected bodies within constitutional frameworks that were themselves democratically approved. They protect the system's integrity, not override it. When courts strike down laws violating minority rights, they're functioning as intended - preventing democratic processes from being used to undermine Democracy itself. This isn't anti-democratic; it's ensuring democracy remains sustainable. Your example about Florida is telling. When democratic backsliding occurs, it's not "freedom from liberalism" but rather the dismantling of crucial democratic guardrails. True democracy requires both electoral processes and institutional protections. On LGBTQ+ rights and affirmative action - these weren't imposed solely by courts. They emerged through complex interactions between social movements, legislative actions, and judicial decisions. The courts didn't act in isolation but responded to evolving societal understanding of constitutional principles - or should we go back to segregation? Your alternative to liberal democracy isn't "more democracy" - it would be a vulnerable "elected regime" that can be dismantled from within (ever heard about a certain election in 1933?). History shows that without institutional protections, electoral systems alone can facilitate their own destruction. Liberal Democracy isn't perfect, but it's proven more resilient and just than any alternative system of governance yet devised. Indeed: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
DrNosferatu 2y ago
Interesting how your critique of 'philosopher kings' only applies to (supposedly liberal) judges protecting rights, never to leaders eliminating them.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Of course, assuming the leader is elected. Rights are a restriction on democratic action. In a secular government, we can’t posit the existence of supernatural law. The only legitimate “rights” derive from two substantively neutral procedural axioms: 1) there’s a hierarchy of law; and 2) the electorate is bound by written law until they vote to change it according to agreed-on procedures. So you can have constitutional “rights” that bind future transient majorities unless the higher law is changed. But there is no legitimate basis to create new “rights” or expand the scope of agreed-upon “rights” based on philosophical or other considerations. That’s just Iran’s Guardian Council concept tethered to a different moralistic philosophy.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    Your stance contains yet another fatal contradiction. You accept that constitutional rights can "bind future transient majorities" through a hierarchy of law, but then claim any interpretation of those rights is illegitimate "philosophical consideration." This makes no sense - written rights require interpretation to have any meaning. The right to "free speech" doesn't self-define what counts as speech or what restrictions are reasonable. You're creating an artificial distinction between "expanding" rights and protecting them. When courts stopped governments from banning internet speech, were they "creating new rights" or protecting the existing right to free expression in a new context? When they applied equal protection to new forms of discrimination, were they "expanding rights" or fulfilling their original purpose? Your comparison to Iran's Guardian Council continues to miss the mark. Constitutional courts interpret democratically-established texts through transparent legal reasoning, subject to democratic override. Iran's clerics impose religious doctrine with no democratic foundation or accountability. These aren't remotely comparable. What you frame as "philosophical considerations" are actually necessary legal analysis of how established rights apply to new situations. Without this, constitutional rights become empty words, unable to serve their democratic purpose of protecting minority participation and preventing majority overreach. The irony is that your position would create exactly what you claim to oppose - a system where rights mean whatever temporary majorities say they mean, making them no rights at all. That's not democracy - it's just mob rule with extra steps.