What's so bad about not having democracy?

[red_elk]

I can't help but to think that you're referring to the election of Donald Trump. Trump won his election because significant segments of the American public had serious problems, which the American political class was completely ignoring (while sometimes outright deriding this same class of people). If anything, to me, this seems to be an argument in favor of democracy and against the supposed enlightened elites. Of course, it is true that the election of Donald Trump hasn't solved any of these issues, but it has forced some people to at least talk about these things. If you want to read more about why Trump was elected, I suggest this article by Geopolitical Futures.

Election of Trump is not a problem itself, it's a symptom of more fundamental underlying problems. Even if he would lose, the situation when people have to choose from two exceptionally bad candidates doesn't look like it's "inherently superior" system.

As for inherent superiority, yes, liberal democracy is inherently superior to all other systems. These is true both in theory and in practice.

This is not only false, but also dangerous belief, which in combination with interventionism, already led to many people's deaths.

 

[Lexicus]

Election of Trump is not a problem itself, it's a symptom of more fundamental underlying problems.

It's both.

 

[Hehehe]

Election of Trump is not a problem itself, it's a symptom of more fundamental underlying problems. Even if he would lose, the situation when people have to choose from two exceptionally bad candidates doesn't look like it's "inherently superior" system.

This is not only false, but also dangerous belief, which in combination with interventionism, already led to many people's deaths.

My good sir, I think we've reached the point where this discussion is starting to go in circles. I'll address your points:

1. The US presidential election had more than 2 candidates. But even beyond that, even if I were to concede to you that this is a problem, once again, the solution is tweaking the system, not replacing it. Also, while we're at it, previously, it used to be that in the US, party elites would simply select the candidates they want to run, instead of primaries like today. If that were the case, perhaps the above situation would have been avoided, if one is inclined to believe that the US democratic process is flawed.

2. Once again, the solution is tweaking the system, not replacing it. It is possible to have a democracy without foreign interventions.

3. As for the superiority of democracy, I already outlined the reasons why I believe the democratic system is superior. You haven't rebutted those reasons nor provided any counter-arguments (aside from the above, but again, the solution is tweaking the system, not replacing it). Unless you want to do either of these things, I'm afraid that we have to respectfully disagree.

 

[Karpius]

Democracy does not guarantee rights to the people. Democracy, in its purest form, serves only the majority.

In the Unites States, we have a republic with democratically elected representatives and a three branch government of checks and balances. Its not always perfect, and has room for improvement where the election process itself is concerned.

It is the Constitution that gives the rights to the individual. It defines and instructs the due process used to redress our grievances with the government, or other individuals. It is a system of government intended to serve the majority while protecting the rights of the individual, as they are currently codified. The Constitution defines and protects the individual's rights. It does not obligate the government to pay for the individuals' exercise of those rights. (I enjoy freedom of speech, but the government is not required to provide the means I employ.)

The Constitution, quite basically, is intended to protect the individual from the oppression of the majority. Its had its failures in history, but the bones are there and the American people continue to work to live up to it.

 

[red_elk]

The US presidential election had more than 2 candidates.

It could have a hundred of candidates, but in reality people had to choose from two bad ones.

Once again, the solution is tweaking the system, not replacing it.

No, the solution is whatever works the best. It can be tweaking or replacing, depending on circumstances. Theoretically, people can eventually come up with a perfect utopian system, but so far what we see is that with historical development, government systems are being replaced with the ones that work best at current stage.

As for the superiority of democracy, I already outlined the reasons why I believe the democratic system is superior.

Well, you said that
"In theory, democracy addresses the needs of largest amount of people possible.". In fact, it only gives people voting power, which doesn't necessary address their needs in an optimal way. It's a step ahead comparing to dictatorship, sure, but saying it is a perfect system which cannot be developed further into something more effective in terms of economical, technological development, is a very bold claim.

Even now, possible alternatives exist - different forms of socialism, anarchism, technocracy, etc. - and you can surely say you believe that absolutely all of them are inferior to liberal democracy, but saying their inferiority is proven is just blatantly wrong.

"Best place to live" mostly depends on how rich and developed the country is. For example, Europe historically had good living standards long before it adopted liberal democracy. 5 thousand years ago, the best place to live was arguably Ancient Egypt, but it doesn't mean we should continue to use it's government system, just keep tweaking it.

 

[Lexicus]

1. The US presidential election had more than 2 candidates. But even beyond that, even if I were to concede to you that this is a problem, once again, the solution is tweaking the system, not replacing it. Also, while we're at it, previously, it used to be that in the US, party elites would simply select the candidates they want to run, instead of primaries like today. If that were the case, perhaps the above situation would have been avoided, if one is inclined to believe that the US democratic process is flawed.

Describing the US political system as "liberal democracy" is, at this point, a bad joke. The US is an oligarchy with electoral politics. It's not a democracy, liberal or otherwise.

 

[Karpius]

It was never intended to be a democracy.

 

[Lexicus]

It was never intended to be a democracy.

So what?

 

[Karpius]

I was essentially agreeing that it should not be called a democracy. Though I think "oligarchy" is off the mark for the federal government, but rather appropriate for the two main parties.

 

[red_elk]

Describing the US political system as "liberal democracy" is, at this point, a bad joke. The US is an oligarchy with electoral politics. It's not a democracy, liberal or otherwise.

To exaggerate a bit, USA is a plutocratic oligarchy, Russia is a soft authoritarianism, etc.
There is even no agreement about which countries can be defined as democracies. No clear distinction between "democratic" and "non-democratic" ones.

 

[Lexicus]

Though I think "oligarchy" is off the mark for the federal government, but rather appropriate for the two main parties.

I don't understand what this means at all. Oligarchy refers to the whole society, not segments of it. "The federal government is an oligarchy" is a statement that makes little if any sense.

 

[Karpius]

I don't understand what this means at all. Oligarchy refers to the whole society, not segments of it. "The federal government is an oligarchy" is a statement that makes little if any sense.

I thought we were discussing the form of government.

 

[Hehehe]

Well, you said that
"In theory, democracy addresses the needs of largest amount of people possible.". In fact, it only gives people voting power, which doesn't necessary address their needs in an optimal way. It's a step ahead comparing to dictatorship, sure, but saying it is a perfect system which cannot be developed further into something more effective in terms of economical, technological development, is a very bold claim.

Democracy is many steps ahead of all of its competitors. As for the stuff about democracy being a perfect system, I never said that. I said that it is better than the alternatives.

Even now, possible alternatives exist - different forms of socialism, anarchism, technocracy, etc. - and you can surely say you believe that absolutely all of them are inferior to liberal democracy, but saying their inferiority is proven is just blatantly wrong.

Ok, and how well do those alternatives work in practice? Can you name me some successful examples? Or compare their average performance to liberal western democracies? They all sound terrible.

"Best place to live" mostly depends on how rich and developed the country is. For example, Europe historically had good living standards long before it adopted liberal democracy. 5 thousand years ago, the best place to live was arguably Ancient Egypt, but it doesn't mean we should continue to use it's government system, just keep tweaking it.

First of all, European countries have grown considerably wealthier under liberal democracies. Sure, a lot of this has to do with technical development, but still. Wealth doesn't grow independent of the political system of the country. We can also look at other examples, such as countries in Eastern Europe. We can argue whether or not Russia is a real democracy (it seems like a kleptocracy more than anything) but even so, is modern Russia not more wealthy compared to its predecessor? How about the rest of the Eastern block? Looking at countries today, how would you compare the performance of democracies compared to alternative systems?

At the end of the day, we can argue cause and correlation all day, but the fact is that Western liberal democratic countries are the best countries on this planet, so why on earth would anyone want to trade that system for something worse? It seems to me that you can only trade down from a liberal democracy.

I should also note that if someone really does come up with a demonstrably better system, then I'm all for it. But so far, they haven't. So far, democracy is the best system humanity has. All these utopian dreams meant to replace it sound nothing more than a disaster.

 

[Lexicus]

The term I used was 'political system', which as I see it is considerably broader than 'government'. In any case what I mean to say is that I am not restricting my analysis to the formally-defined government. The US, as a whole, is an oligarchy. To paraphrase Marx, the formally-defined government is merely the executive committee of the oligarchs.

 

[red_elk]

Democracy is many steps ahead of all of its competitors. As for the stuff about democracy being a perfect system, I never said that. I said that it is better than the alternatives.

Even if it's better than existing alternatives, which is arguable, it doesn't mean better alternative is in principle impossible. Which is entirely my point here.
You can say your car is better for you than the alternatives existing in the market. Saying it's the best for everybody and (with tweaking) will be the best forever, is a very different statement.

Ok, and how well do those alternatives work in practice?

Well, one example is China. It is already the biggest economy in the world by PPP and going to be nominally the biggest one in next several years. It is an emerging superpower, which is going to dominate the world's politics in near future. May be we should all adopt their system, just "tweak" it a little bit to allow more personal freedoms? Just a suggestion.
Many alternatives has never been tried, such as stateless societies (anarchy, communism, etc.) May be it is our future, who knows?

We can argue whether or not Russia is a real democracy (it seems like a kleptocracy more than anything) but even so, is modern Russia not more wealthy compared to its predecessor?

Russia didn't become much wealthier comparing to USSR. There are more personal freedoms, which were introduced during Perestroika in late 80-s. In some aspects, for example, mortality, life expectancy, quality of education, etc. we lost a lot, only trying to catch up last decade. Under Putin, which isn't considered in the West as particularly democratic ruler either.

Eastern Block contain different examples. Baltic States are ok, but there are also Ukraine and Moldova, which became basically failed states after they got independence, while "less democratic" Belorussia, Russia are alive and well.

 

[Lexicus]

Even if it's better than existing alternatives, which is arguable, it doesn't mean better alternative is in principle impossible. Which is entirely my point here.

It seems like a bit of a waste of time to make that point, then, since the phrase "in principle" means the "better alternative" you could be talking about is rule by gods, genetically-engineered superhumans, or some kind of hyperintelligent machine.

 

[red_elk]

It seems like a bit of a waste of time to make that point, then, since the phrase "in principle" means the "better alternative" you could be talking about is rule by gods, genetically-engineered superhumans, or some kind of hyperintelligent machine.

Probably, but it seems my opponent denies even the possibility that the better alternative may exist, claiming that all the problems can be solved by tweaking current system. To discuss details of something, we need at least agree that this something theoretically exists.

 

[innonimatu]

I agree with this. It's is a good argument that most legislative activity deals with things that people care about and that affect people's lives, rather than merely technological changes.

I also agree, and add to that my suspicion that the idea of legislative change being driven by technological change (which became a common idea) was a deliberately disseminated deception. Technological change is inevitable, so goes the common
sense, so claiming that some legislative change derives from it, is necessary because of it, weakens opposition.

 

[Lexicus]

I also agree, and add to that my suspicion that the idea of legislative change being driven by technological change (which became a common idea) was a deliberately disseminated deception. Technological change is inevitable, so goes the common
sense, so claiming that some legislative change derives from it, is necessary because of it, weakens opposition.

At its most pernicious this gets into the 'techno-utopianism', the belief that "technology" (I put it in quotes because the analysis usually is really this simplistic) can solve all problems of governance.

 

[Hehehe]

Even if it's better than existing alternatives, which is arguable, it doesn't mean better alternative is in principle impossible. Which is entirely my point here.
You can say your car is better for you than the alternatives existing in the market. Saying it's the best for everybody and (with tweaking) will be the best forever, is a very different statement.

Like I've already said, utopian alternatives to democracy sound like crap. But if it turns out that some of them are actually, demonstrably better than democracy, as proven by real world success, then sure, I'll consider it.

Well, one example is China. It is already the biggest economy in the world by PPP and going to be nominally the biggest one in next several years. It is an emerging superpower, which is going to dominate the world's politics in near future. May be we should all adopt their system, just "tweak" it a little bit to allow more personal freedoms? Just a suggestion.
Many alternatives has never been tried, such as stateless societies (anarchy, communism, etc.) May be it is our future, who knows?

China is your big example? I don't think you understand just how poor China is. Based on GDP per capita, China is ranked at around 70, whereas China is overall still really poor. I'm not sure that the future of China is any better either, most of their economic growth is due to financial bubbles and over-indebtedness, and once those bubbles pop, they could lead to massive unrest and even civil war. I hope these things won't happen, but China is hardly an example of a non-democracy that we can all look up to (or certainly not us in the West)

Russia didn't become much wealthier comparing to USSR. There are more personal freedoms, which were introduced during Perestroika in late 80-s. In some aspects, for example, mortality, life expectancy, quality of education, etc. we lost a lot, only trying to catch up last decade. Under Putin, which isn't considered in the West as particularly democratic ruler either.

Eastern Block contain different examples. Baltic States are ok, but there are also Ukraine and Moldova, which became basically failed states after they got independence, while "less democratic" Belorussia, Russia are alive and well.

The Eastern block as a whole is a great deal poorer compared to capitalist democracies. Some countries are starting to catch up somewhat, but it's a long and slow process. Others are still riddled with corruption and kleptocracy. In any case, I can't help but to compare Eastern Germany to Western Germany (culturally and geographically fairly similar places) or compare Finland to the Baltic states. I don't see any way Communism comes out on top in this comparison. Maybe in the Communist system kleptocrats didn't steal as much, but that's only because those countries were so poor that there was nothing to steal.