5 ms·

Given that democracy is at its heart mob rule, in countries without a liberal democratic tradition the losers of elections tend to also lose their lives and pri

by wtbob 12y ago

Given that democracy is at its heart mob rule, in countries without a liberal democratic tradition the losers of elections tend to also lose their lives and privileges; it'd be insane to ever step down as president in many of these Third World states. Rather than embracing democracy fetishism, what if we embraced liberty instead? Let the strongmen declare themselves Kings or Presidents-for-Life or whatever, but encourage them to actually foster liberty for their subjects, rather than trying to run an entire nation from a single desk. Just a thought.

vikiomega9 12y ago
I would think what you call liberal democratic tradition is because most democracies are established as functioning republics.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 12y ago
That's the truth at the heart of statist (as opposed to anarchist) libertarianism. A despot is a despot, whether they're exercising power purely for self-interest, or according to "enlightened" principles.
- krick 12y ago
  Yes, by definition "despot" is simply a measure of one persons power. But this word also has significant negative connotation, which I find unfair. First off, simply because it's implying that "somewhere out there is a problem and here we are smart guys sitting in our comfy chairs in a country with electricity and deciding if it's right or not", and if "out there" isn't actually your country where you are living yourself it's none of your business. Second, implying that "situation in the country doesn't matter" as you do right now is simply absurd. We must remember, that all that stuff isn't something that simply "happens", but actual people making real decisions, drinking their morning coffee while thinking what they ought to do next in a country where everything might just change radically every minute. Believing that it is their moral obligation both to "care about your country" and "not to become a dictator" is simply contradictory, because it's quite likely that situation makes him to believe it's his only choice to hold power in his hands steadily and stepping aside after 4 or 8 or whatever years would be outright contradictory to "caring about your country". Even if we actually would like to step aside, because it's easier. He might be wrong, but if he truly does this believing that this is his only moral choice, that he does it for his people's sake — even if he is wrong in my opinion I would know better than disrespect his sacrifice by saying something like "A despot is a despot, whether they're exercising power purely for self-interest or not". But if he is right and actually rules justly, making lives better, then I have no problem with it whatsoever. Opposing it would be nothing more than saying simply that "democracy is the best form of government", and now this is something I have problem with, because even if it could be true in the case of that old, pure "Athenian democracy" (and could be not), implying that this fake "democracy thing" that is called "democracy" in USA and UK today is the same thing — is simply wrong, even harmful, and "if it actually is the best form of government" is actually a very serious question by itself.
Apocryphon 12y ago
Isn't this what we practiced in the '80s, with Pinochet's Chile?
- adventured 12y ago
  Yes, and it hasn't worked anywhere that it has been tried in modern times. A Republic is the ideal formulation, balancing representative systems with checks & balances, an independent judiciary capable of striking down attempts at authoritarianism and protecting individual rights via a sound constitution, and a moderate executive office.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  And from wiki: "Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government." September 11th, 1973. Never forget.
  - hga 12y ago
    I might be impressed by such sentiments if the Left had a fraction of the same attitude towards the 5 orders of magnitude greater number of people killed by the type of people Pinochet and company killed. Yep, it generally agreed that a bare minimum of 100 million were killed by Communists in the 20th Century; my rough guess, with a non-standard accounting for pre-1949 China, is more like 250 million. "Some people just need killing", and I put Communist revolutionaries very high on that list.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
      The vast majority of those deaths are from famine (and if you're seriously going to add an extra 150 million from pre-1949, how many are you going to put on the ledger of the Nationalist government or the Japanese?) Here's a couple posts (from an unexpected source) that go into depth on these kind of numbers, and the things that come up when you take seriously the assumptions that went into generating them and seeing where that leads. http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/'who-gets-rewarded-by-our-economy'-salon-com/msg420147/#msg420147 http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-we... http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/'who-gets-rewarded-by-our-economy'-salon-com/msg422771/#msg422771 http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-we...
mercurial 12y ago
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once they are entrenched, and their allies and family members have started to siphon public money, why would they ever give up? Especially since these are not countries with strong institutions and a lot of regards for human rights. Nothing keeps the next strongman from disappearing them. It's closer to medieval politics than western democracy.

by wtbob 12y ago

vikiomega9 12y ago

I would think what you call liberal democratic tradition is because most democracies are established as functioning republics.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 12y ago

That's the truth at the heart of statist (as opposed to anarchist) libertarianism. A despot is a despot, whether they're exercising power purely for self-interest, or according to "enlightened" principles.

krick 12y ago
Yes, by definition "despot" is simply a measure of one persons power. But this word also has significant negative connotation, which I find unfair. First off, simply because it's implying that "somewhere out there is a problem and here we are smart guys sitting in our comfy chairs in a country with electricity and deciding if it's right or not", and if "out there" isn't actually your country where you are living yourself it's none of your business. Second, implying that "situation in the country doesn't matter" as you do right now is simply absurd. We must remember, that all that stuff isn't something that simply "happens", but actual people making real decisions, drinking their morning coffee while thinking what they ought to do next in a country where everything might just change radically every minute. Believing that it is their moral obligation both to "care about your country" and "not to become a dictator" is simply contradictory, because it's quite likely that situation makes him to believe it's his only choice to hold power in his hands steadily and stepping aside after 4 or 8 or whatever years would be outright contradictory to "caring about your country". Even if we actually would like to step aside, because it's easier. He might be wrong, but if he truly does this believing that this is his only moral choice, that he does it for his people's sake — even if he is wrong in my opinion I would know better than disrespect his sacrifice by saying something like "A despot is a despot, whether they're exercising power purely for self-interest or not". But if he is right and actually rules justly, making lives better, then I have no problem with it whatsoever. Opposing it would be nothing more than saying simply that "democracy is the best form of government", and now this is something I have problem with, because even if it could be true in the case of that old, pure "Athenian democracy" (and could be not), implying that this fake "democracy thing" that is called "democracy" in USA and UK today is the same thing — is simply wrong, even harmful, and "if it actually is the best form of government" is actually a very serious question by itself.

Apocryphon 12y ago

Isn't this what we practiced in the '80s, with Pinochet's Chile?

adventured 12y ago
Yes, and it hasn't worked anywhere that it has been tried in modern times. A Republic is the ideal formulation, balancing representative systems with checks & balances, an independent judiciary capable of striking down attempts at authoritarianism and protecting individual rights via a sound constitution, and a moderate executive office.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
And from wiki: "Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government." September 11th, 1973. Never forget.
- hga 12y ago
  I might be impressed by such sentiments if the Left had a fraction of the same attitude towards the 5 orders of magnitude greater number of people killed by the type of people Pinochet and company killed. Yep, it generally agreed that a bare minimum of 100 million were killed by Communists in the 20th Century; my rough guess, with a non-standard accounting for pre-1949 China, is more like 250 million. "Some people just need killing", and I put Communist revolutionaries very high on that list.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    The vast majority of those deaths are from famine (and if you're seriously going to add an extra 150 million from pre-1949, how many are you going to put on the ledger of the Nationalist government or the Japanese?) Here's a couple posts (from an unexpected source) that go into depth on these kind of numbers, and the things that come up when you take seriously the assumptions that went into generating them and seeing where that leads. http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/'who-gets-rewarded-by-our-economy'-salon-com/msg420147/#msg420147 http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-we... http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/'who-gets-rewarded-by-our-economy'-salon-com/msg422771/#msg422771 http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-we...

mercurial 12y ago

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once they are entrenched, and their allies and family members have started to siphon public money, why would they ever give up? Especially since these are not countries with strong institutions and a lot of regards for human rights. Nothing keeps the next strongman from disappearing them. It's closer to medieval politics than western democracy.