6 ms·

> a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom I'm not arguing with that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it ha

by venus 13y ago

> a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom I'm not arguing with that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it has been conclusively proved that being able to exercise that freedom leads to a better society, and it is that end we should be thinking about, not the means. > decide that you'd rather prize political freedom over wealth Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point? "Well, the company didn't make any profits, can't pay its bills and the building is falling down around it, but at least the workers all had a say!"

jackowayed 13y ago
> Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point? Seriously? You think that everything a government should strive to guarantee is a means where the end is wealth? You don't think that equality, freedom to criticize questionable government practices (even those that improve GDP), or anything else should be a goal in itself?
- chrischen 13y ago
  I think you probably went through the US education system? US schools brainwash kids into thinking that democracy and freedom to criticize the government are inherently good concepts, but in reality they are only desirable because of the practical effects it may or may not produce. There are no universal morals, and because of that you can't say democracy is inherently "right." So I have to side with your parent and say that democracy is only "right" if you believe that its effects in improving society objectively are "right." Schools just simplify it as "democracy is inherently right" because its easier to indoctrinate that principle.
  - jackowayed 13y ago
    But the comment I replied to basically posited "wealth" as the one and only universal good by suggesting that if the government strives for something that doesn't eventually yield wealth, there's no point. An overused example: Fascism has at times lead to incredible economic growth, creating wealth that did measurable good in most citizen's lives (by ending terrible depressions). But there was more that came along with that, which mostly wasn't cutting into the country's wealth (maybe it squanders some human capital, but so does 30% unemployment, which the Nazis completely reversed in around 5 years). Despite the positive implications of fascism on "wealth", there's a lot that the Nazis did that most would be inclined to call bad. On the other hand, Scandanavian socialist democracy may not be optimal for wealth creation, but it has a lot of benefits that help people lead enjoyable lives that are free from the risk of various kinds of terrible suffering (eg. homelessness). There are no universal goods, but when pushed, very few people are actually willing to eschew all goods except wealth. And if you are, what's so special about wealth that makes it a good you're willing to quasi-universalize?
    - venus 13y ago
      I used the word wealth because I was replying to another post which used it when trying to set up a false dichotomy between political freedom on one side and "wealth" on the other, as if they're opposites and you can have one or the other, not both. I wasn't trying to say that the sole goal of government is to get everyone rich. But I did say long term - long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. For that matter the nordic social experiment cannot be said to have succeeded yet. Really, none of this has been around long enough to make any final conclusions about anything. Anyway. Instead of "wealth" you might want to read "social wealth" - the ability of a society to provide good jobs, education, social mobility, health care, long term satisfaction, security of state and person, those kinds things.
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        > long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. Germany is the exporting powerhouse of Europe. But just to be clear, you would be ok with the whole holocaust thing if Germany now had the GDP (or whatever metric you want to use for "social wealth") of the US as a result?
        lloeki 13y ago
        > Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. I think you meant Volkswagen Group, created in 1937 by the Nazis and backed by Hitler to create the Type 1 (a.k.a Beetle). Today, Volkswagen owns Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Porsche, Ducati, Seat, Skoda, and has a majority of shares in Suzuki. Mercedes is small fry compared do VG.
        flyinRyan 13y ago
        Mercedes was just off the top of my head. There are many businesses that did well under Hitler and still do well today.
    - chrischen 13y ago
      I'm sure venus meant "wealth" as "well-being." GDP is one potential way to measure it... but it may or may not be flawed. We're just referring to "wealth" as a theoretical concept we can't perfectly measure.
  - oillio 13y ago
    Someone in this thread already quoted the US constitution, so I won't do it again. This is not just taught by the US school systems, this is the basis on which the United States was founded. It is taught in the school system because the populace of the US believe that there are in fact universal morals. We believe that it is self evident that one of these morals is our right (not privilege) to seek freedom to question the government. It is in the first line of our mission statement. To tell someone that their beliefs are wrong simply because of where they originated is rather arrogant. You have no idea the OP's background and how deeply they have questioned their own beliefs. It is perfectly fine to disagree with this opinion. However, you must argue against the actual opinion, dismissing it due to where or how it is taught provides nothing to the discussion. P.S. - Sorry everyone for feeding the trolls.
    - chrischen 13y ago
      I never said his beliefs were wrong. In fact, believing in universal morals is the act of treating everyone with different morals as if they are wrong. I simply argued to the parent post that is there is no such thing as universal morals, and our morals, ideals, goals are all framed around an end we want to achieve. And that end, whatever is, can be arbitrarily defined... so morals therefore are also arbitrarily defined. Believing in universal morals is stating that your morals are better than others because you believe in it. It's just like nationalism. You'll believe your country is better because you were born in it, just as you might believe your morals are better than others (universal) simply because you've been indoctrinated by them. Just as your school isn't necessarily right when indoctrinating you with morals, your country's founding fathers may not be right either. It might have been right for the purposes of the country, but you really do have to see things from other perspectives. I hope people reading this also take note of the subtle name calling oillio just committed (calling me a troll). If life were that simple we could just dismiss every opposing viewpoint as a troll, just as in minesweeper marking everything a flag... but it doesn't work that way.
  - comicjk 13y ago
    I agree that there are no universal morals. I propose this solution: we let everyone follow his own morals as much as possible, and when it's impossible for everyone to be satisfied on a given point, we vote on it. Constitutional democracy is not a denial that people have different morals - it's based on that fact.
    - chrischen 13y ago
      Constitutional democracy only works if the whole population agrees to the moral and practical superiority of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity. And then it is allowed to function. It doesn't happen naturally without conscious human intervention. Naturally, if society was a crude free-for-all, we'd have things that resemble Somalia, or the Mexican drug cartels, or North Korea (along with things like The United States). In these examples of political structures, we have the most powerful taking control of whatever they can take control of. Then they hold it there with whatever means they can for as long as they can. Democracy is like this but all the people say "hey, let's try giving everyone the same amount of power so we can normalize this game called life and control this experiment for longer-term goals." Basically I'm saying that power supersedes even democracy oh the moral pyramid. There is one level even beyond democracy and here you'll find it in the company of authoritarianism, communism, etc. Power is at the top level of this pyramid. It is based on survival of the fittest. Power is the only universal moral because it is a fundamental law of nature. Democracy is not a fundamental law of nature. It is a construct of a specific subgroup of humans. It was conceived and designed to achieve a specific goal. And because there is a goal, and all goals are different, it is a subjective end. Therefore democracy is arbitrary and subjective—not a universal moral. As much as you'd like to believe in inalienable rights, if I have a gun to your head, you can bet I can alienate your "natural" rights. Yes, you'll always have the choice of death or obedience, but once you're dead, you're irrelevant. But if you have a bigger gun, then I can no longer "alienate" your rights! You can "alienate" mine! That's power. Democracy is abstracted into laws which are ultimately enforced with power (guns, police... head) Because of this, democracy is not fundamental. It is human-designed construct and therefore it is not a universal thing. Another way to think of it is like this: we have a 10 x 10 grid and we have 100 people. Democracy assigns each person a square. Power lets people take whatever squares they can defend. The end result of these two philosophies will look different, but democracy was specifically designed to artificially treat each person as equal so we can achieve the end goal of giving people a chance to succeed. Supposedly this will help society be better off, but this goal is still an arbitrary goal (though most people would agree on this) and democracy is just the means. The natural outcome is to give spaces to those who can defend it. If you can't defend the space, you don't deserve to own it. Democracy is human manipulation of this system to try to achieve better results. I will fully disclose that I am a firm supporter of democracy (because of the way it normalizes society), but I want to make it clear that it's because it's the best method so far, not because it's inherently right.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    So you think freedom to criticize the government isn't really needed? It would be cool if the government could simply murder anyone they wanted and no one could say anything? I can't believe I'm reading this on HN. And no I don't believe democracy is fundamentally "right", I believe it is the safest option we currently have because the people who want to be in control are often dangerous. How dangerous they can be is dependent on how much power they have. Show me anywhere in the history of the world where not having the right to criticize the government turned out well in the long term.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  I seem to remember a lottery that was run in 1984 - the Orwell book.
fishtoaster 13y ago
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I'm not quoting that at you to be self-righteous. I'm using it to illustrate that most people in the world seem to believe that political freedom is considered a good in and of itself. At least in the US, anyway- it's in our mission statement. It's not just a good thing, but one of The Good Things, that's worthy of being pursued independent of wealth. You seem to consider liberty as a means to an end. That's a perfectly fine viewpoint, but I think you should recognize that you're not debating about singapore, but about that underlying assumption.
nairteashop 13y ago
It depends whether you think it is ok for the government: - to ban chewing gum - to publicly cane people (limited to "6 strokes" for women, how nice) - to enforce capital punishment (i.e. killing people for allegedly killing people) - to limit your rights to criticize your government - etc ...provided that it guarantees you good money. There is nothing inherently wrong with your point of view, and I have many friends who live in singapore, dubai, etc who do not have issues with rules such as the above. However, I also know many people who value personal freedom above all, and do not think that being guaranteed money supersedes these freedoms. (FWIW I count myself in this group). I know I'm stretching this a bit, but if you've watched the Matrix, this is the difference between the protagonists who wish freedom from the machines, and Cypher (Joe Pantoliano) who thinks the illusion of a good life is just fine with him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAsgavFvohI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAsgavFvohI He does have a point, but most of us identified with the protagonists, right?
- foobarian 13y ago
  I don't know, I wonder if something like public caning might be a more humane and more effective option than sentencing people to anal rape. (Which is de facto what often happens in the US).
  - nairteashop 13y ago
    You do raise an interesting point. I think calling jail time what you called it is a bit extreme but yeah, lots and lots of people do get thrown in jail here. I don't have a good answer as to what I would consider "just punishment" by the state for things like robbery, etc. However, throwing someone in jail for littering is certainly extreme.
  - yardie 13y ago
    Anal rape is not a defacto thing in US jails or prisons. Is it an epidemic? Almost certainly since the justice department has turned a blind eye to it and LEOs use the threat of it to coerce confessions in a few cases. But actual rape amongst nonviolent convicts is not higher (2-2.5%, according to Wikipedia [1]). You're more likely to be sexually assaulted, in general, just by being a woman. No one is sentenced to anal rape in the US. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_State...
simonh 13y ago
>I'm not arguing with that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it has been conclusively proved that being able to exercise that freedom leads to a better society, and it is that end we should be thinking about, not the means. There is a problem with centralised political power, and that's that if a nastier, more corrupt and less tolerant clique gets hold of that power there is absolutely nothing that can stop your pleasant and prosperous one party state from becoming an oppressive and dystopian one. That is the problem. In fact it's a historical truism that absolute power eventually does corrupt absolutely, or at least that eventually the absolutely corrupt will gravitate to that position of power. Simon Hibbs
- venus 13y ago
  > There is a problem with centralised political power Well yes, of course. Even the laziest student of history knows that. I am not trying to advocate for that extreme end of the range of political possibilities. The elephant in the room, though, is that the other extreme - our hyper-egalitarianism; giving everyone, by birth, no matter how uninformed, no matter how disinterested, an unchallenged vote does not seem to be working too well. Especially when one throws such "freedoms" into the mix as the ability for the incumbent ruling class to massively amplify their own voices by the mass media. So "there is a problem" with what we have, too. You say that there's a problem with centralised political power, and I agree wholeheartedly, but we certainly do have a problem because that centralised power is in every lounge room, car radio and news stand in the land. At least with communism you knew who was pulling the strings!
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Australian democracy works quite well with compulsory voting. It seems to have been improved by the "compulsory" part. (It's not very compulsory -- you can show up and submit a blank ballot or not show up and pay a small fine that isn't really enforced, but the effect is significant.) The US political system suffers in significant part from deliberate attempts to disenfranchise huge sectors of society. Black people, or poor people, say. In what first world country do you need to queue for three hours (and I did this in Arlington — one of the richest places in the US, not Mississippi) to vote on a working day? Democracy isn't the problem in itself, flawed as it may be, but US democracy suffers from special self-inflicted problems: it's a government created by people who were suspicious of government AND democracy, so it's unmanageable by design. To be fair, democracy was an untried idea at the time, but the US is stuck with ridiculous artifacts of those early doubts. We have a right to bear arms that cannot easily be undone or moderated but no right to, say, transportation, communication, or health care. Our abortion laws were magically derived from some other inferred right rather than designed by legislators with reference to experts (which is how abortion laws everywhere else work) so it's literally a war between people who think a pregnant mother has no rights over her own body until the child is born and other people who think she should be able to kill the baby right up until it's born. In Australia (IIRC) it's twelve weeks or to save the mother's life. No other democracy has this problem.
snowwrestler 13y ago
The thing is, someone is exercising political freedom in even the most repressive governments: the person (or people) at the top who make all the decisions. Now it's possible that they will make some good decisions, and create wealth and raise living standards for a while. But eventually, they will either make some bad decisions, or die. And when that happens...then what? Often the answer (as we have seen recently) is violent chaos. Political freedoms allow a society to reinvent itself without chaotic bloodshed. When leaders make bad decisions, everyone else can talk about it, figure out a better way to go, and vote that into effect. The power of this approach is ably demonstrated by the U.S., which is the richest, and one of the most stable, nations on Earth, despite having among the strongest protections for free expression.
Tloewald 13y ago
I think you could make the case that Singapore is a dictatorship in a kind of English tradition just as the US is a democracy with the same broad tradition. Despite some differences in detail, broad cultural values are actually pretty close (language probably being a huge contributing factor). To put it another way: Singapore uses strong central government to achieve the same kinds of effects Americans will cheerfully use other means (e.g. Disneyland, gated communities, giant shopping malls) to achieve.
- eru 13y ago
  Actually, we do have giant shopping malls and some form of gated communities in Sinagpore, too. Disneyland didn't quite make it, despite some attempt in the 90s (I think), but there are other themeparks.
flyinRyan 13y ago
This line of thinking leads to things like the Nazi youth. No, having freedom doesn't lead to a better society, it prevents dangerous extremism. So far, history seems to indicate that dangerous extremism is more problematic than being overly mediocre.

by venus 13y ago

jackowayed 13y ago

> Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point? Seriously? You think that everything a government should strive to guarantee is a means where the end is wealth? You don't think that equality, freedom to criticize questionable government practices (even those that improve GDP), or anything else should be a goal in itself?

chrischen 13y ago
I think you probably went through the US education system? US schools brainwash kids into thinking that democracy and freedom to criticize the government are inherently good concepts, but in reality they are only desirable because of the practical effects it may or may not produce. There are no universal morals, and because of that you can't say democracy is inherently "right." So I have to side with your parent and say that democracy is only "right" if you believe that its effects in improving society objectively are "right." Schools just simplify it as "democracy is inherently right" because its easier to indoctrinate that principle.
- jackowayed 13y ago
  But the comment I replied to basically posited "wealth" as the one and only universal good by suggesting that if the government strives for something that doesn't eventually yield wealth, there's no point. An overused example: Fascism has at times lead to incredible economic growth, creating wealth that did measurable good in most citizen's lives (by ending terrible depressions). But there was more that came along with that, which mostly wasn't cutting into the country's wealth (maybe it squanders some human capital, but so does 30% unemployment, which the Nazis completely reversed in around 5 years). Despite the positive implications of fascism on "wealth", there's a lot that the Nazis did that most would be inclined to call bad. On the other hand, Scandanavian socialist democracy may not be optimal for wealth creation, but it has a lot of benefits that help people lead enjoyable lives that are free from the risk of various kinds of terrible suffering (eg. homelessness). There are no universal goods, but when pushed, very few people are actually willing to eschew all goods except wealth. And if you are, what's so special about wealth that makes it a good you're willing to quasi-universalize?
  - venus 13y ago
    I used the word wealth because I was replying to another post which used it when trying to set up a false dichotomy between political freedom on one side and "wealth" on the other, as if they're opposites and you can have one or the other, not both. I wasn't trying to say that the sole goal of government is to get everyone rich. But I did say long term - long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. For that matter the nordic social experiment cannot be said to have succeeded yet. Really, none of this has been around long enough to make any final conclusions about anything. Anyway. Instead of "wealth" you might want to read "social wealth" - the ability of a society to provide good jobs, education, social mobility, health care, long term satisfaction, security of state and person, those kinds things.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      > long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. Germany is the exporting powerhouse of Europe. But just to be clear, you would be ok with the whole holocaust thing if Germany now had the GDP (or whatever metric you want to use for "social wealth") of the US as a result?
      - lloeki 13y ago
        > Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. I think you meant Volkswagen Group, created in 1937 by the Nazis and backed by Hitler to create the Type 1 (a.k.a Beetle). Today, Volkswagen owns Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Porsche, Ducati, Seat, Skoda, and has a majority of shares in Suzuki. Mercedes is small fry compared do VG.
        flyinRyan 13y ago
        Mercedes was just off the top of my head. There are many businesses that did well under Hitler and still do well today.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    I'm sure venus meant "wealth" as "well-being." GDP is one potential way to measure it... but it may or may not be flawed. We're just referring to "wealth" as a theoretical concept we can't perfectly measure.
- oillio 13y ago
  Someone in this thread already quoted the US constitution, so I won't do it again. This is not just taught by the US school systems, this is the basis on which the United States was founded. It is taught in the school system because the populace of the US believe that there are in fact universal morals. We believe that it is self evident that one of these morals is our right (not privilege) to seek freedom to question the government. It is in the first line of our mission statement. To tell someone that their beliefs are wrong simply because of where they originated is rather arrogant. You have no idea the OP's background and how deeply they have questioned their own beliefs. It is perfectly fine to disagree with this opinion. However, you must argue against the actual opinion, dismissing it due to where or how it is taught provides nothing to the discussion. P.S. - Sorry everyone for feeding the trolls.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    I never said his beliefs were wrong. In fact, believing in universal morals is the act of treating everyone with different morals as if they are wrong. I simply argued to the parent post that is there is no such thing as universal morals, and our morals, ideals, goals are all framed around an end we want to achieve. And that end, whatever is, can be arbitrarily defined... so morals therefore are also arbitrarily defined. Believing in universal morals is stating that your morals are better than others because you believe in it. It's just like nationalism. You'll believe your country is better because you were born in it, just as you might believe your morals are better than others (universal) simply because you've been indoctrinated by them. Just as your school isn't necessarily right when indoctrinating you with morals, your country's founding fathers may not be right either. It might have been right for the purposes of the country, but you really do have to see things from other perspectives. I hope people reading this also take note of the subtle name calling oillio just committed (calling me a troll). If life were that simple we could just dismiss every opposing viewpoint as a troll, just as in minesweeper marking everything a flag... but it doesn't work that way.
- comicjk 13y ago
  I agree that there are no universal morals. I propose this solution: we let everyone follow his own morals as much as possible, and when it's impossible for everyone to be satisfied on a given point, we vote on it. Constitutional democracy is not a denial that people have different morals - it's based on that fact.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Constitutional democracy only works if the whole population agrees to the moral and practical superiority of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity. And then it is allowed to function. It doesn't happen naturally without conscious human intervention. Naturally, if society was a crude free-for-all, we'd have things that resemble Somalia, or the Mexican drug cartels, or North Korea (along with things like The United States). In these examples of political structures, we have the most powerful taking control of whatever they can take control of. Then they hold it there with whatever means they can for as long as they can. Democracy is like this but all the people say "hey, let's try giving everyone the same amount of power so we can normalize this game called life and control this experiment for longer-term goals." Basically I'm saying that power supersedes even democracy oh the moral pyramid. There is one level even beyond democracy and here you'll find it in the company of authoritarianism, communism, etc. Power is at the top level of this pyramid. It is based on survival of the fittest. Power is the only universal moral because it is a fundamental law of nature. Democracy is not a fundamental law of nature. It is a construct of a specific subgroup of humans. It was conceived and designed to achieve a specific goal. And because there is a goal, and all goals are different, it is a subjective end. Therefore democracy is arbitrary and subjective—not a universal moral. As much as you'd like to believe in inalienable rights, if I have a gun to your head, you can bet I can alienate your "natural" rights. Yes, you'll always have the choice of death or obedience, but once you're dead, you're irrelevant. But if you have a bigger gun, then I can no longer "alienate" your rights! You can "alienate" mine! That's power. Democracy is abstracted into laws which are ultimately enforced with power (guns, police... head) Because of this, democracy is not fundamental. It is human-designed construct and therefore it is not a universal thing. Another way to think of it is like this: we have a 10 x 10 grid and we have 100 people. Democracy assigns each person a square. Power lets people take whatever squares they can defend. The end result of these two philosophies will look different, but democracy was specifically designed to artificially treat each person as equal so we can achieve the end goal of giving people a chance to succeed. Supposedly this will help society be better off, but this goal is still an arbitrary goal (though most people would agree on this) and democracy is just the means. The natural outcome is to give spaces to those who can defend it. If you can't defend the space, you don't deserve to own it. Democracy is human manipulation of this system to try to achieve better results. I will fully disclose that I am a firm supporter of democracy (because of the way it normalizes society), but I want to make it clear that it's because it's the best method so far, not because it's inherently right.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  So you think freedom to criticize the government isn't really needed? It would be cool if the government could simply murder anyone they wanted and no one could say anything? I can't believe I'm reading this on HN. And no I don't believe democracy is fundamentally "right", I believe it is the safest option we currently have because the people who want to be in control are often dangerous. How dangerous they can be is dependent on how much power they have. Show me anywhere in the history of the world where not having the right to criticize the government turned out well in the long term.
lostlogin 13y ago
I seem to remember a lottery that was run in 1984 - the Orwell book.

fishtoaster 13y ago

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I'm not quoting that at you to be self-righteous. I'm using it to illustrate that most people in the world seem to believe that political freedom is considered a good in and of itself. At least in the US, anyway- it's in our mission statement. It's not just a good thing, but one of The Good Things, that's worthy of being pursued independent of wealth. You seem to consider liberty as a means to an end. That's a perfectly fine viewpoint, but I think you should recognize that you're not debating about singapore, but about that underlying assumption.

nairteashop 13y ago

It depends whether you think it is ok for the government: - to ban chewing gum - to publicly cane people (limited to "6 strokes" for women, how nice) - to enforce capital punishment (i.e. killing people for allegedly killing people) - to limit your rights to criticize your government - etc ...provided that it guarantees you good money. There is nothing inherently wrong with your point of view, and I have many friends who live in singapore, dubai, etc who do not have issues with rules such as the above. However, I also know many people who value personal freedom above all, and do not think that being guaranteed money supersedes these freedoms. (FWIW I count myself in this group). I know I'm stretching this a bit, but if you've watched the Matrix, this is the difference between the protagonists who wish freedom from the machines, and Cypher (Joe Pantoliano) who thinks the illusion of a good life is just fine with him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAsgavFvohI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAsgavFvohI He does have a point, but most of us identified with the protagonists, right?

foobarian 13y ago
I don't know, I wonder if something like public caning might be a more humane and more effective option than sentencing people to anal rape. (Which is de facto what often happens in the US).
- nairteashop 13y ago
  You do raise an interesting point. I think calling jail time what you called it is a bit extreme but yeah, lots and lots of people do get thrown in jail here. I don't have a good answer as to what I would consider "just punishment" by the state for things like robbery, etc. However, throwing someone in jail for littering is certainly extreme.
- yardie 13y ago
  Anal rape is not a defacto thing in US jails or prisons. Is it an epidemic? Almost certainly since the justice department has turned a blind eye to it and LEOs use the threat of it to coerce confessions in a few cases. But actual rape amongst nonviolent convicts is not higher (2-2.5%, according to Wikipedia [1]). You're more likely to be sexually assaulted, in general, just by being a woman. No one is sentenced to anal rape in the US. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_State...

simonh 13y ago

>I'm not arguing with that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it has been conclusively proved that being able to exercise that freedom leads to a better society, and it is that end we should be thinking about, not the means. There is a problem with centralised political power, and that's that if a nastier, more corrupt and less tolerant clique gets hold of that power there is absolutely nothing that can stop your pleasant and prosperous one party state from becoming an oppressive and dystopian one. That is the problem. In fact it's a historical truism that absolute power eventually does corrupt absolutely, or at least that eventually the absolutely corrupt will gravitate to that position of power. Simon Hibbs

venus 13y ago
> There is a problem with centralised political power Well yes, of course. Even the laziest student of history knows that. I am not trying to advocate for that extreme end of the range of political possibilities. The elephant in the room, though, is that the other extreme - our hyper-egalitarianism; giving everyone, by birth, no matter how uninformed, no matter how disinterested, an unchallenged vote does not seem to be working too well. Especially when one throws such "freedoms" into the mix as the ability for the incumbent ruling class to massively amplify their own voices by the mass media. So "there is a problem" with what we have, too. You say that there's a problem with centralised political power, and I agree wholeheartedly, but we certainly do have a problem because that centralised power is in every lounge room, car radio and news stand in the land. At least with communism you knew who was pulling the strings!
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Australian democracy works quite well with compulsory voting. It seems to have been improved by the "compulsory" part. (It's not very compulsory -- you can show up and submit a blank ballot or not show up and pay a small fine that isn't really enforced, but the effect is significant.) The US political system suffers in significant part from deliberate attempts to disenfranchise huge sectors of society. Black people, or poor people, say. In what first world country do you need to queue for three hours (and I did this in Arlington — one of the richest places in the US, not Mississippi) to vote on a working day? Democracy isn't the problem in itself, flawed as it may be, but US democracy suffers from special self-inflicted problems: it's a government created by people who were suspicious of government AND democracy, so it's unmanageable by design. To be fair, democracy was an untried idea at the time, but the US is stuck with ridiculous artifacts of those early doubts. We have a right to bear arms that cannot easily be undone or moderated but no right to, say, transportation, communication, or health care. Our abortion laws were magically derived from some other inferred right rather than designed by legislators with reference to experts (which is how abortion laws everywhere else work) so it's literally a war between people who think a pregnant mother has no rights over her own body until the child is born and other people who think she should be able to kill the baby right up until it's born. In Australia (IIRC) it's twelve weeks or to save the mother's life. No other democracy has this problem.

snowwrestler 13y ago

The thing is, someone is exercising political freedom in even the most repressive governments: the person (or people) at the top who make all the decisions. Now it's possible that they will make some good decisions, and create wealth and raise living standards for a while. But eventually, they will either make some bad decisions, or die. And when that happens...then what? Often the answer (as we have seen recently) is violent chaos. Political freedoms allow a society to reinvent itself without chaotic bloodshed. When leaders make bad decisions, everyone else can talk about it, figure out a better way to go, and vote that into effect. The power of this approach is ably demonstrated by the U.S., which is the richest, and one of the most stable, nations on Earth, despite having among the strongest protections for free expression.

Tloewald 13y ago

I think you could make the case that Singapore is a dictatorship in a kind of English tradition just as the US is a democracy with the same broad tradition. Despite some differences in detail, broad cultural values are actually pretty close (language probably being a huge contributing factor). To put it another way: Singapore uses strong central government to achieve the same kinds of effects Americans will cheerfully use other means (e.g. Disneyland, gated communities, giant shopping malls) to achieve.

eru 13y ago
Actually, we do have giant shopping malls and some form of gated communities in Sinagpore, too. Disneyland didn't quite make it, despite some attempt in the 90s (I think), but there are other themeparks.

flyinRyan 13y ago

This line of thinking leads to things like the Nazi youth. No, having freedom doesn't lead to a better society, it prevents dangerous extremism. So far, history seems to indicate that dangerous extremism is more problematic than being overly mediocre.