How would you fix the United Nations?

[metatron]

But then why not Poland?

Sure, that's a valid enough argument...

...just not one in favor of Australia having been more "important" than France and therefore being more "deserving" of a permanent UNSC seat.

So?

I share your annoyance at this.

It's not even that it was entirely wrong. It isn't.
It's - in most of the episodes i mentioned - the disproportion between little interest for nuance and detail and readyness to make far-reaching claims.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I thought France was included on the security council because they still had a lot of colonies and was therefore considered a major world power. In any case they shortly went on to develop their own nuclear weapons which cemented that fact.

Because colonies and because WW2 was a prolongation of WW1 and in that one France was one of the main if not the main antagonist of Germany. And because France is France, one of the biggest western countries. But not because French specific contribution to allied victory in WW2 which was mostly irrelevant and behind many other countries which are not in the security council.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Because colonies and because WW2 was a prolongation of WW1 and in that one France was one of the main if not the main antagonist of Germany. And because France is France, one of the biggest western countries. But not because French specific contribution to allied victory in WW2 which was mostly irrelevant and behind many other countries which are not in the security council.

Yeah I did not make or agree with that argument.

 

[Lexicus]

It's not even that it was entirely wrong. It isn't.

I mean, it's pretty close to entirely wrong. It's certainly true that Hitler had a mass base of support and that the Nazis became the largest party in the Recihstag. But given the amount of violence they employed in the process of becoming the largest party I'm not sure it's accurate to say that was done wholly 'democratically.' Hitler's appointment to the office of Chancellor, meanwhile, had nothing whatever to do with democracy - it was the result of a backroom deal by traditional elites who had opposed the Republic from the start.

It's also worth pointing out that in the last remotely free election in Germany, November 1932, the Nazis lost some ground to the left. They weren't even able to obtain a straight majority in the rigged March 1933 election.

 

[metatron]

I mean, it's pretty close to entirely wrong.

Yeah... i mean... there's a level where the statement could apply.
"An election happened, the results were not completely forged outright, weird dubiously Continental things happened, Hitler ended up being Chancellor."
I'm being charitable obviously. Your points are valid. And there are more.

I just want to make clear that it is not someone being wrong or lacking knowledge or even being flippant (hey, glass house, amiright) that i am criticising here, but complete and virtually explicit disinterest in detail.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, I almost always see some version of the idea being invoked as evidence against the desirability of democracy, so I have less sympathy for it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think the citing of "Hitler was democratically elected," while not necessarily a completely accurate statement, serves as a valid and valuable warning. It doesn't say "democracy is undesirable." It clearly says that democracies are capable of electing their own demise, and should take care.

 

[Lexicus]

The most common line I see goes something like: The US is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. DEMOCRACY is bad, something something tyranny of the majority, something something property rights, something something Hitler was democratically elected.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The most common line I see goes something like: The US is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. DEMOCRACY is bad, something something tyranny of the majority, something something property rights, something something Hitler was democratically elected.

Yeah, I usually interrupt right after "republic, not democracy" by saying "and you're an idiot, what of it?"

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, I usually interrupt right after "republic, not democracy" by saying "and you're an idiot, what of it?"

I would, it's hard to interrupt people typing comments on social media though

 

[inthesomeday]

I meeeeeeean it’s true that the US is a republic and isnt a democracy though

 

[Akka]

A dysfunctional democracy is still a democracy. The US (badly) needs reforms, not regime change.

(in fact, the whole world, and the West in particular, badly needs reform that would kick all the lobbies out of politics)

 

[Lexicus]

I meeeeeeean it’s true that the US is a republic and isnt a democracy though

Democracy is an idea. A republic is a polity in which government is seen as a public affair rather than the private concern of a ruler or family.

In short, saying the US is a republic, not a democracy, is like saying an apple is red, not a vegetable.

 

[inthesomeday]

Democracy is an idea. A republic is a polity in which government is seen as a public affair rather than the private concern of a ruler or family.

In short, saying the US is a republic, not a democracy, is like saying an apple is red, not a vegetable.

There’s such a thing as a practical democracy. Parts of republican Spain, the Paris Commune, etc.

 

[Lexicus]

There’s such a thing as a practical democracy. Parts of republican Spain, the Paris Commune, etc.

No, I don't agree that there is really any such thing as "a" democracy. Societies vary along a continuum in how democratic they are. The US remains a moderately democratic republic, though it is far less democratic than I wish it were, and I think it is getting less democratic over time too.

Anyway, the point is that you can have a democratic republic (e.g. Republican Spain) or a non-democratic Republic (e.g. the People's Republic of China).

 

[inthesomeday]

No, I don't agree that there is really any such thing as "a" democracy. Societies vary along a continuum in how democratic they are. The US remains a moderately democratic republic, though it is far less democratic than I wish it were, and I think it is getting less democratic over time too.

Anyway, the point is that you can have a democratic republic (e.g. Republican Spain) or a non-democratic Republic (e.g. the People's Republic of China).

I agree. How about: the US is a republic and is absent democracy

 

[Lexicus]

I agree. How about: the US is a republic and is absent democracy

No, I don't agree with this. As I said, there is way less democracy in the US than I would like, but there is not none. The problem is that just like with capitalism and socialism the tendency is to talk about these things as if they are discrete categories, thus, a society is a democracy or isn't, must either be entirely capitalist or entirely socialist, but no really-existing society fits 100% with any of these concepts we use to describe them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Generally speaking the people who are saying it's a republic and not a democracy have no clue that it is possible to have a republic without democratically elected representation. Their definition of republic inherently includes the democratic process and they don't have sufficient depth to understand what they are saying.

 

[inthesomeday]

No, I don't agree with this. As I said, there is way less democracy in the US than I would like, but there is not none. The problem is that just like with capitalism and socialism the tendency is to talk about these things as if they are discrete categories, thus, a society is a democracy or isn't, must either be entirely capitalist or entirely socialist, but no really-existing society fits 100% with any of these concepts we use to describe them.

Hm... what are some examples of democracy in the United States?

Generally speaking the people who are saying it's a republic and not a democracy have no clue that it is possible to have a republic without democratically elected representation. Their definition of republic inherently includes the democratic process and they don't have sufficient depth to understand what they are saying.

Electing representatives is not democratic.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Electing representatives is not democratic.

It's a democratic process. Having a ruling council of hereditary barons makes a republic, but it isn't the same kind of republic.