4 ms·

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

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.”

rayiner 2y ago
India for example was ruled by Oxford-educated westernized elites at the time. They didn’t speak for the Indian people. Democracy has nothing to do with “minority rights.” That’s a fixation of liberalism, and it’s in tension with democracy. And in practice it’s a vehicle for liberals to overrule the democratic majority on almost everything, because everything can be framed in terms of “rights.” (See Sanders’ recent push to reframe healthcare as a right.) Constitutions and laws haven’t meant anything for a century. At one time you could argue a constitution was a way for a democratic super-majority to bind future transient majorities. But the prevailing American view of constitutional interpretation in the 20th century posited that “emanations from penumbras” was a source of constitutional law. That means that something that the people never ratified in the past could overrule democratic majorities in the present. “Liberal democracy” is nothing more than rule by philosopher kings, either judges or these days administrators. It’s not meaningfully democracy. It’s indistinguishable from Iran’s Guardian Council, which overrides democracy to ensure compliance with Islamic law. Same shit, different religion.
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  That’s one big straw men assembly. I’ll get back to you, but I’ll say this for now: Liberal Democracy’s fusion of majority rule and minority rights isn’t elitist—it’s the hard-earned lesson of centuries of bloodshed. Dismissing it as “philosopher kings” ignores its core premise: *No one*, not even the majority, is above the law.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > Dismissing it as “philosopher kings” ignores its core premise: No one, not even the majority, is above the law. Someone must decide what the law is. Unless interpretation of the law is tightly cabined--and in practice it is not--that turns the interpreters of the law into philosopher kings that are above democracy.
    - DrNosferatu 2y ago
      The "someone must decide" argument fundamentally misunderstands how constitutional democracy works. Constitutional courts don't freely "decide what the law is" - they interpret frameworks explicitly created and amendable through democratic processes. The U.S. Constitution wasn't handed down by philosopher kings - it was debated, voted on, and ratified by elected representatives. Its amendments reflect centuries of democratic evolution. Your position creates a false choice between unconstrained judicial power and unconstrained majority power. Real constitutional democracies have multiple checks and balances: Courts interpret within boundaries set by elected bodies. Legislatures can amend constitutions. Voters can change both. No single group becomes "philosopher kings." The "tightly cabined" standard you propose would paradoxically require exactly the kind of unaccountable super-authority you claim to oppose. Who would decide what counts as "tight" enough? Who would enforce those limits? Your solution creates the very problem you're trying to solve. Constitutional democracy isn't about putting anyone "above democracy" - it's about creating a stable system where democracy can actually function long-term. Without protected rights and independent courts, democracy quickly becomes nothing more than temporary tyranny of 50%+1. The history of successful democracies versus failed ones proves this isn't theoretical. Which systems have maintained stable democratic transitions of power over generations? The ones with strong constitutional frameworks and independent courts.

rayiner 2y ago

India for example was ruled by Oxford-educated westernized elites at the time. They didn’t speak for the Indian people. Democracy has nothing to do with “minority rights.” That’s a fixation of liberalism, and it’s in tension with democracy. And in practice it’s a vehicle for liberals to overrule the democratic majority on almost everything, because everything can be framed in terms of “rights.” (See Sanders’ recent push to reframe healthcare as a right.) Constitutions and laws haven’t meant anything for a century. At one time you could argue a constitution was a way for a democratic super-majority to bind future transient majorities. But the prevailing American view of constitutional interpretation in the 20th century posited that “emanations from penumbras” was a source of constitutional law. That means that something that the people never ratified in the past could overrule democratic majorities in the present. “Liberal democracy” is nothing more than rule by philosopher kings, either judges or these days administrators. It’s not meaningfully democracy. It’s indistinguishable from Iran’s Guardian Council, which overrides democracy to ensure compliance with Islamic law. Same shit, different religion.

DrNosferatu 2y ago
That’s one big straw men assembly. I’ll get back to you, but I’ll say this for now: Liberal Democracy’s fusion of majority rule and minority rights isn’t elitist—it’s the hard-earned lesson of centuries of bloodshed. Dismissing it as “philosopher kings” ignores its core premise: *No one*, not even the majority, is above the law.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > Dismissing it as “philosopher kings” ignores its core premise: No one, not even the majority, is above the law. Someone must decide what the law is. Unless interpretation of the law is tightly cabined--and in practice it is not--that turns the interpreters of the law into philosopher kings that are above democracy.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    The "someone must decide" argument fundamentally misunderstands how constitutional democracy works. Constitutional courts don't freely "decide what the law is" - they interpret frameworks explicitly created and amendable through democratic processes. The U.S. Constitution wasn't handed down by philosopher kings - it was debated, voted on, and ratified by elected representatives. Its amendments reflect centuries of democratic evolution. Your position creates a false choice between unconstrained judicial power and unconstrained majority power. Real constitutional democracies have multiple checks and balances: Courts interpret within boundaries set by elected bodies. Legislatures can amend constitutions. Voters can change both. No single group becomes "philosopher kings." The "tightly cabined" standard you propose would paradoxically require exactly the kind of unaccountable super-authority you claim to oppose. Who would decide what counts as "tight" enough? Who would enforce those limits? Your solution creates the very problem you're trying to solve. Constitutional democracy isn't about putting anyone "above democracy" - it's about creating a stable system where democracy can actually function long-term. Without protected rights and independent courts, democracy quickly becomes nothing more than temporary tyranny of 50%+1. The history of successful democracies versus failed ones proves this isn't theoretical. Which systems have maintained stable democratic transitions of power over generations? The ones with strong constitutional frameworks and independent courts.