5 ms·

> That is not democracy. Not even close. Why is that not democracy? What does democracy have to do with it? I often see the word "democracy" used as if it mean

> That is not democracy. Not even close. Why is that not democracy? What does democracy have to do with it? I often see the word "democracy" used as if it means "freedom".

kls 17y ago
>"What does democracy have to do with it" democracy = everybody gets a vote. If we where a democracy, I did not get to vote, because I was not allowed to see the text of the subject to make an informed decision. Anyway, we are not a democracy we are a republic which is evident by the fact that I did not get a vote on the issue. The elected leaders did and this is the problem with a republic over a democracy, someone is doing the voting for you and after that someone has received your vote to put them their they tend to forget about the people that got them there.
- salvadors 17y ago
  You seem to be confusing several different concepts. Most countries have representative democracy, rather than direct democracy. This is largely orthogonal to the issue of being a republic, which (in this context, and in over-simplified terms) simply means that there are certain things that even a majority vote can't achieve, as the majority is also bound by the Constitution (in an attempt to avoid the classic problem of two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner)
  - forensic 17y ago
    a constitutional republic != a republic != a democracy != representative democracy
    - eru 17y ago
      And pairwise, too.
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    simply means that there are certain things that even a majority vote can't achieve, as the majority is also bound by the Constitution Not really, even the Constitution is amendable by a super majority. You should have said a simple majority.
ajb 17y ago
You can't really have democracy without freedom.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  Of course you can. Even mainstream commentators agree with me on this one; they have a term for it: "illiberal democracy" [1]. In any case, I would make the stronger point that you can't really have freedom with democracy. [1] The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997
Vivtek 17y ago
Well, there are plenty of aspects to the notion of the participants in a society being its owners; that's what I lump together as "democracy", which is a shorthand for what America is supposed to be about - government by, for, and of the people and all that. Since you can't have government by, for, and of the people without freedom, and you can't be free if you don't have power over the government, I don't feel too bad about conflating the two. Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free? I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress. Do you think you'd get far with a startup in a less egalitarian society? You might, but the fact that your grandfather didn't know the right people's grandfathers is going to really weigh you down. It's only the basic assumption of equality of all people that make it possible for most to start anything new. And I do take it for granted that everyone here believes that starting new things is the way to go. So, OK, we can posit an egalitarian, "free" society where only an elite have political power. I honestly don't believe that's an actual possibility - what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have? Nothing. This probably deserves a lot more thought and space than I can fit in this margin.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  > "democracy", which is a shorthand for what America is supposed to be about - government by, for, and of the people and all that. It's not at all clear that America was supposed to be about this, even if that is what they teach in schools today. However since it's not really relevant I won't argue the point further. > Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free? Many monarchies and similar governments throughout history have allowed more freedom for their citizens than today's democracies. Of course, no one is completely free under any of these governments (certainly not a democratic one). > I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress...that make it possible for most to start anything new. You really, really shouldn't take that as a given, especially that "democratic" part. It is understandable, though, that many people believe this -- considering it's essentially what has been taught in schools for the last century or so. Do you really believe enterprise did not flourish in the West until after the rise of democracy? That is not what history shows. > what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have? Nothing. Not that I want your hypothetical to come true, but it is worth considering that tax rates in monarchies were generally quite low (<10%), especially when compared to the tax rates in today's democracies. There are well-understood reasons for this if you are interested.

> That is not democracy. Not even close. Why is that not democracy? What does democracy have to do with it? I often see the word "democracy" used as if it means "freedom".

kls 17y ago

>"What does democracy have to do with it" democracy = everybody gets a vote. If we where a democracy, I did not get to vote, because I was not allowed to see the text of the subject to make an informed decision. Anyway, we are not a democracy we are a republic which is evident by the fact that I did not get a vote on the issue. The elected leaders did and this is the problem with a republic over a democracy, someone is doing the voting for you and after that someone has received your vote to put them their they tend to forget about the people that got them there.

salvadors 17y ago
You seem to be confusing several different concepts. Most countries have representative democracy, rather than direct democracy. This is largely orthogonal to the issue of being a republic, which (in this context, and in over-simplified terms) simply means that there are certain things that even a majority vote can't achieve, as the majority is also bound by the Constitution (in an attempt to avoid the classic problem of two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner)
- forensic 17y ago
  a constitutional republic != a republic != a democracy != representative democracy
  - eru 17y ago
    And pairwise, too.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  simply means that there are certain things that even a majority vote can't achieve, as the majority is also bound by the Constitution Not really, even the Constitution is amendable by a super majority. You should have said a simple majority.

ajb 17y ago

You can't really have democracy without freedom.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
Of course you can. Even mainstream commentators agree with me on this one; they have a term for it: "illiberal democracy" [1]. In any case, I would make the stronger point that you can't really have freedom with democracy. [1] The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997

Vivtek 17y ago

Well, there are plenty of aspects to the notion of the participants in a society being its owners; that's what I lump together as "democracy", which is a shorthand for what America is supposed to be about - government by, for, and of the people and all that. Since you can't have government by, for, and of the people without freedom, and you can't be free if you don't have power over the government, I don't feel too bad about conflating the two. Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free? I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress. Do you think you'd get far with a startup in a less egalitarian society? You might, but the fact that your grandfather didn't know the right people's grandfathers is going to really weigh you down. It's only the basic assumption of equality of all people that make it possible for most to start anything new. And I do take it for granted that everyone here believes that starting new things is the way to go. So, OK, we can posit an egalitarian, "free" society where only an elite have political power. I honestly don't believe that's an actual possibility - what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have? Nothing. This probably deserves a lot more thought and space than I can fit in this margin.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
> "democracy", which is a shorthand for what America is supposed to be about - government by, for, and of the people and all that. It's not at all clear that America was supposed to be about this, even if that is what they teach in schools today. However since it's not really relevant I won't argue the point further. > Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free? Many monarchies and similar governments throughout history have allowed more freedom for their citizens than today's democracies. Of course, no one is completely free under any of these governments (certainly not a democratic one). > I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress...that make it possible for most to start anything new. You really, really shouldn't take that as a given, especially that "democratic" part. It is understandable, though, that many people believe this -- considering it's essentially what has been taught in schools for the last century or so. Do you really believe enterprise did not flourish in the West until after the rise of democracy? That is not what history shows. > what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have? Nothing. Not that I want your hypothetical to come true, but it is worth considering that tax rates in monarchies were generally quite low (<10%), especially when compared to the tax rates in today's democracies. There are well-understood reasons for this if you are interested.