Okay, fine. Freedom sucks anyway.

[aelf]

No problem with 'lack of freedom'

CRITICS of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's policies and contributions have totally missed the point ("Amid the tributes, some brickbats and questions"; last Friday).

Most of us Singaporeans, the silent majority, do not have a problem with the way Mr Lee governed Singapore.

No government is perfect. The policies Mr Lee and his team implemented were for selfless reasons, only for the good of the people.

I greatly admire the courage of our Government in implementing tough policies, as it was its foresight and its strength in not yielding to populist pressure that brought Singapore to our present state.

I have no problems with the banning of chewing gum or other "inhumane restrictions".

I am grateful that I was able to grow up in Singapore, with the emphasis on the importance of education, a roof over my head, and equal opportunity, even though I came from a poor family. What is the use of freedom if I do not even have a roof over my head and a stable livelihood?

Freedom and democracy as defined in the West are not what I desire if it means one group can freely impose its ideals on another. Freedom must be accompanied by maturity and the expectation that all can behave in a responsible way.

But we are all human and have our weaknesses, so it is impossible to expect this level of accountability among us.

Josephine Leow Ting Ting (Ms)

Link

Ting ting ting, we have a winner!

Since we are human and to err is human, we cannot have democracy. I have not seen such genius since Thomas Hobbes!

So, tell me, Westerners - are you convinced that liberal democracy does not work yet? How many more funerals and eulogies of great leaders (those people you used to "bulb" those techs - where do you think they went?) do we need before you finally learn?

 

[Phrossack]

April Fool's, right?

Right?

 

[Light Cleric]

My takeaway is that the Great Person from finishing Liberty isn't really "free" which I think most people know but I guess some don't. Should probably be moved to S&T tho.

 

[Agent327]

Absolutely!

Link

Ting ting ting, we have a winner!

Since we are human and to err is human, we cannot have democracy.

I'm sure this is meant in a provoking manner, but I don't really see that being said in the quoted bits.

April fool?

 

[aelf]

I'm sure this is meant in a provoking manner, but I don't really see that being said in the quoted bits.

April fool?

But it is!

Freedom must be accompanied by maturity and the expectation that all can behave in a responsible way.

But we are all human and have our weaknesses, so it is impossible to expect this level of accountability among us.

More fool you.

 

[Agent327]

Oh, it was meant seriously, was it? I read accountability, not democracy. But possibly I'm suffering from dyslexia here.

More to the point however, freedom can never be absolute: freedom without responsibility simply equals anarchy, and certainly not democracy in any meaningful way. FWIW, liberal democracy has always put limits on an individual's freedom. It is, in fact, part of the theory of liberalism. (And democracy originally was not part of the theory of liberalism.)

 

[aelf]

No, accountability here refers to "maturity and the expectation that all can behave in a responsible way," which is required by freedom and which humans cannot be expected to have. And freedom was associated with democracy in the preceding sentence: "Freedom and democracy as defined in the West are not what I desire if it means one group can freely impose its ideals on another."

 

[onejayhawk]

Ting ting ting, we have a winner!

Since we are human and to err is human, we cannot have democracy. I have not seen such genius since Thomas Hobbes!

So, tell me, Westerners - are you convinced that liberal democracy does not work yet? How many more funerals and eulogies of great leaders (those people you used to "bulb" those techs - where do you think they went?) do we need before you finally learn?

This works so much better as irony. Democracy stinks, until you compare it to the alternatives.

Funny you should mention eulogies. Saudi Arabia had an essay contest among their schoolchildren, in praise of their late king. Should we compare human rights there to, say, Germany?

J

 

[Joecoolyo]

if it means one group can freely impose its ideals on another

Lost here.

Singapore so stronk, everyone accepts the ruling ideology!

 

[madviking]

It seems from my very extensive studying of history and history-related subjects that this is pretty [feces-like].

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What is the use of freedom if I do not even have a roof over my head and a stable livelihood?

Isn't the PRC currently governing on the compulsiveness of this principle?

 

[jackelgull]

Isn't the PRC currently governing on the compulsiveness of this principle?

Yes, but once that roof over the head is made, then why not have freedom to go with it? A dictatorship can't last long when there's a large enough middle class. Then more insidious forms of disempowerment have to take place.

 

[Kozmos]

Yes, but once that roof over the head is made, then why not have freedom to go with it? A dictatorship can't last long when there's a large enough middle class. Then more insidious forms of disempowerment have to take place.

The middle classes are pretty okay with their place most of the time. Food security, some discretionary income, someone to bone. If you really want freedom you need to be upper class. Everything else is balls.

 

[Tee Kay]

Strawman has a point; democracy as practiced in the West is often reduced to "majority rules, minority drools".

 

[Arwon]

Strawman has a point; democracy as practiced in the West is often reduced to "majority rules, minority drools".

And Singapore is what, a unanimous hive mind?

 

[Agent327]

No, accountability here refers to "maturity and the expectation that all can behave in a responsible way," which is required by freedom and which humans cannot be expected to have. And freedom was associated with democracy in the preceding sentence: "Freedom and democracy as defined in the West are not what I desire if it means one group can freely impose its ideals on another."

I didn't know freedom and democracy were defined 'in the West'. What's the importance of this single person to be quoted anyway? Political liberalism (which did eveolve in the West) has long been aware of this failure of the general population to 'behave in a responsible way'. Hence law and police to enforce it.

But that apart, liberal democracy (if we take that as representing Western style democracy) has rarely taken root outside of the West. There are democracies in India (the most notable example), South Africa, Nigeria, Latin America etc, of course. Is it reasonable to call all those liberal democracies? And even, what is liberal democracy? Are the US, where over half the population doesn't even bother to vote for presidential elections, an example of liberal democracy? Russia terms itself a democracy, though clearly with authoritarian overtones - which, according to polls, is supported by a majority of the population.

 

[Tahuti]

I didn't know freedom and democracy were defined 'in the West'. What's the importance of this single person to be quoted anyway? Political liberalism (which did eveolve in the West) has long been aware of this failure of the general population to 'behave in a responsible way'. Hence law and police to enforce it.

But that apart, liberal democracy (if we take that as representing Western style democracy) has rarely taken root outside of the West. There are democracies in India (the most notable example), South Africa, Nigeria, Latin America etc, of course. Is it reasonable to call all those liberal democracies? And even, what is liberal democracy? Are the US, where over half the population doesn't even bother to vote for presidential elections, an example of liberal democracy? Russia terms itself a democracy, though clearly with authoritarian overtones - which, according to polls, is supported by a majority of the population.

'Liberal Democracies' are much more benign than most other types of Democracy precisely because democracy is tempered in such states. Most posterboys of Western democracy possess lobby groups and elite legislative chambers that manage to contain the negative aspects of democracy that have taken root in many third world countries like India where there are no checks to popular votemongering.

So elements of oligarchy through elite legislative chambers and the influence of lobbyist groups were indespensible in counteracting popular craziness and creating prosperity, stability and liberty. France shortly after the French Revolution was arguably more democratic than Modern France, though the latter has arguably less turmoil and makes for a much greater place to live in.

 

[Kyriakos]

As W said: "fool me once, shame on you, fool me...er, fool me... can't get fooled again!"

 

[Mise]

Strawman has a point; democracy as practiced in the West is often reduced to "majority rules, minority drools".

On the contrary, I'd say that Western liberal democracies are the only countries that consistently protect minorities...

EDIT: Here's a map for gay rights:

I mean, you don't even need a legend for that map. You know what the colours are, just from looking at the countries that share similar colours.

 

[Tahuti]

On the contrary, I'd say that Western liberal democracies are the only countries that consistently protect minorities...

I wouldn't the only countries, though Western liberal democracies are indeed relatively good in protecting exceptionally able minorities.

The middle classes are pretty okay with their place most of the time. Food security, some discretionary income, someone to bone. If you really want freedom you need to be upper class. Everything else is balls.

Freedom is how you call power when you are to receive it from others. Power is freedom that you made for yourself.