You're twisting my words to make a strawman. Of course there can be life on other planets, but we have no reason to think this. No proof whatsoever that would justify thinking that there is life on other planets. Of course there can be better alternatives to democracy, but we have no reason to think this. In fact, the present reality and the history of mankind would suggest the opposite.
What's so bad about not having democracy?
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
Zero wealth was stolen. Again, do you understand what reparations is?
Read again what you are asking about.
You just said comparisons are inapplicable and immediately asked for example where non-democratic system wins in comparison
On your unproven assertion that the democracy is "inherently superior" system, you were given examples of problems in the countries which are considered democratic, as well as examples of successful non-democratic countries. All what you asked for. If you want to turn it into GDP measurement contest, we're just going back to China-India comparison.
At this point, I can't tell if you're just pretending to be stupid. What is the monetary value of reparations taken?
Read again what you are asking about.
You just said comparisons are inapplicable and immediately asked for example where non-democratic system wins in comparison
You brought up this comparison. I showed you that western democracies win this comparison. Then you claim that the comparison isn't valid. If we accept this, it brings us back to square one, which is that the richest, most successful countries on this planet are Western democracies. So clearly it can't be that bad of a system?
Ok, I'll concede that alternative systems can do better than India does. But they can't do better than Western democracies (US, Canada, Western Europe).
Moriarte
Immortal
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,690
Sure, the end of history has been reached. Last stop, everybody stays in the wagon. No reason to think that there could be a polit-economical system, where 99% of wealth won't end up in the hands of 1% of population. Zero. Here's one for everlasting dogmatism!
No idea, exact number has little to do with our discussion. It was large enough to affect East Germany industrial capability.
I brought you example of successful non-democratic country. Which may possibly have more effective system of government than the Western countries, at least in a number of important aspects. And that GDP per capita is not a criteria to disregard Chinese example, because it is developing country. Is it so difficult to understand?
Last edited:
aelf
Ashen One
Seems like a disingenuous line of argument, since my the question was immediately followed up by this other question:
Also, your segueing claim that rules can't change at the turn of the coin in a democracy rings false. All you need is a majority in some systems to effect dramatic changes.
This doesn't follow and I see evidence to the contrary in real life. A democracy can and do mess with the free market. And authoritarian regimes do run free markets.
Oh? That's interesting. What makes you say that?
By the way, do you understand the reference in my location to the left? If you don't, I think you lose this one by default.
So your threshold for democracy is basically procedural democracy? As long as there are elections, it's a democracy?
That makes your claim that democracies are less likely to mess with the free market even weaker.
I read your argument that revolved around China not being as economically developed as the West, but I've addressed that too.
As I've suggested earlier, economic arguments about the superiority of democracy by reference to East vs. West or North vs. South are easily defeated by pragmatic, realist arguments concerning immediate choices. There has to be better ones. And bad or evidently false arguments like...
...won't cut it either. I say this because I often see Eurocentric ideologues saying such things that are mostly baseless.
I have read philosophical arguments for democracy, certainly, but they're not seemingly compelling enough for people who don't already prefer democracy. We need something that can connect with those people. The questions in the OP are asked on a personal/individual level because I want to hear the basis of your personal preference for democracy, but there's as yet no depth among the few attempts to answer them.
Last edited:
Guys, check out this bad boy. Human development index 2016. Notice which political systems dominate the top 10. Or top 20. Or top 30. Interesting stuff. Can't argue with success
Well show me this superior system. Please kiddo, do enlighten me.
You haven't followed the discussion at all, have you? If you're going to jump in, at least read the previous discussion.
Of course, but in a democratic system, you have the option of peacefully removing the offending governments.
I already schooled you on Singapore. Did you have anything to add to that?
Pro-liberal democratic arguments are not compelling to authoritarians. But they are compelling to liberals, since liberals usually aren't fans of authoritarians. I've already laid out the main points (peaceful change of government, addressing the needs of largest amount of people possible). Whereas the only argument against democracy, that you have provided, has been this supposed superior economic growth that never really manifests in practice.
Well show me this superior system. Please kiddo, do enlighten me.
You haven't followed the discussion at all, have you? If you're going to jump in, at least read the previous discussion.
Ok what is the number? Or the range? All I'm asking for is a figure with a source. If you can't do that, then you can just admit that you don't know what you're talking about. That's cool too
No, you didn't. You've shown me no such thing. All you've shown me are inferior systems. Even your best (arguable) examples are beaten by the best democracies. Democracy wins, again
Of course, but in a democratic system, you have the option of peacefully removing the offending governments.
I already schooled you on Singapore. Did you have anything to add to that?
Liberal democracy is, to some extent, a continuum. Some are more free than others.
Does not follow. Even if I were to grant you that point point about Singapore (highly arguable) even so, Singapore would be the exeption, not the rule.
In any case, no alternative system has been able to produce the kind of living standards as democracies have. This is true whether or not you think the Chinese comparison is valid.
Pro-liberal democratic arguments are not compelling to authoritarians. But they are compelling to liberals, since liberals usually aren't fans of authoritarians. I've already laid out the main points (peaceful change of government, addressing the needs of largest amount of people possible). Whereas the only argument against democracy, that you have provided, has been this supposed superior economic growth that never really manifests in practice.
aelf
Ashen One
You "schooled" me with a Wiki page. How impressive. A sure sign than you are more of an expert than a native voter and political watcher, I take it?
The exception creates the rule, because non-democrats can use those examples to justify why they shouldn't support democracy, which is what is happening in real life.
What does denying reality serve? Even granted that most economic metrics still favour democratic countries in the developed world, some authoritarian states have demonstrated superior economic growth. And that's the whole problem. You can say, "Look at how rich Western liberal democratic countries are," and people in Asia can reply with, "Well, look at how poor democratic India is and look at how well some countries are doing in the last few decades without pluralistic or liberal democratic systems." So they go on their way and suppress opposition and ensure one-party rule, and that kind of stuff, and enjoy fame and fortune.
Rather than engaging in rhetoric that isn't working. What is your personal reason for preferring democracy? And how might this connect with others who might not already grasp what you're talking about? I think personal experience might be the key.
My point is that the economic development of Easter Germany was affected by reparations to the Soviet Union. I'm not sure why you keep asking for arbitrary numbers, but if you want link, you can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_German_Democratic_Republic
Again, why you consider Chinese and Singaporean government systems inferior? Can you prove it?
This thread is yet another example of the question, where S.P. Huntington quotes perfectly fit:
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."
and
"In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous"
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."
and
"In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous"
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington
To make an argument about merits of democracy and focus on its ability to create economic growth is, frankly, appalling.
Democracies generally beat non-democratic regimes in economic growth, because, fortunately, it is NOT cost-effective to oppress people by denying them basic rights and liberties, at least not long-term.
It is, however, not overly difficult to imagine a dystopia where some technology (yeah, that again!) makes this cost-effective.
I dearly hope no-one here would argue in favor of embedding half the population with cheaply produced, free-will erasing microchips or shock-collars and sending them off to labor camps, were this found to outperform democracy in economic growth?
Democracies generally beat non-democratic regimes in economic growth, because, fortunately, it is NOT cost-effective to oppress people by denying them basic rights and liberties, at least not long-term.
It is, however, not overly difficult to imagine a dystopia where some technology (yeah, that again!) makes this cost-effective.
I dearly hope no-one here would argue in favor of embedding half the population with cheaply produced, free-will erasing microchips or shock-collars and sending them off to labor camps, were this found to outperform democracy in economic growth?
Lexicus
Deity
I find myself in full agreement. Once more the ugly neoliberal idea that people exist to serve the economy (rather than the other way around) rears its head.
Yeah. The only little problem is that Saudi Arabia is above Portugal and Slovakia in your table.
Are you honestly trying to attribute the success of Saudi Arabia to its political regime or was that remark a pointless distraction?
No, I'm making the point that using HDI as a measure of how good the country's government system is, might be not such a good idea.
Better than most, if you ignore outliers and focus on clear trends. But yes, I somewhat agree. See my previous post.
I agree with your point that using economic effectiveness for that purpose is wrong. Before industrialization, even slavery was quite competitive by this measure.
I wouldn't consider non-democratic regimes as necessary oppressive though, but I guess that wasn't your argument either.
Perhaps. Didn't work out too well for Layered though...
EDIT: Bonus points for anyone who gets the reference without Googling it.
A regime without free elections implies that someone governs people without their consent, or at least without a mechanic to withdraw that consent. That someone may happen to be benevolent, enlightened and even beloved, but eventually one of his successors is not going to be. Usually sooner rather than later.
Which raises two questions:
1) Whether presence of free elections a sufficient condition to call regime a "democracy"? I think it isn't, and a conclusion is that non-democratic regimes may have free elections as well.
2) Whether free elections the only way for people to express their consent to be governed by someone, or other ways are possible? This one is more difficult, admittedly.
Similar threads
