What's so bad about not having democracy?

[sophie]

Weber is wack, yo

 

[BvBPL]

What if you were living under a non-democratic system that is able to deliver improving standards of living, or at least what you think is better than the alternative? Stability, relative economic security or the hope of unprecedented social mobility - would these not be enough for you?

You ask for our personal opinions.

Doesn't matter much to a large number of people, I suspect. Economic security is probably the number 1 concern in the world.

Then say that the personal opinion you’ve requested “doesn’t matter” because you’re really talking about the opinion of the general population.

 

[aelf]

This is a discussion, not a game. There are no goals to score, at least as I see it. YMMV.

Also, it seems rather odd to say that just because I ask for opinions, I'm not allowed to appraise them. If you don't think my appraisal is right, feel free to elaborate.

 

[BvBPL]

A discussion rests upon mutually agreed terms. When you ask for personal opinions and then invalidate those opinions because they aren’t general opinions then you are not engaging in a discussion.
In fact, this is emblematic of why people are wary of autocracy. In an autocracy, rules can change on the turn of a coin with little direction given to the ruled. A democracy avoids that.

 

[innonimatu]

I mean... yes, it can obviously be a deceptive claim in context on any particular bill. But to discount the entire idea of some legislative change deriving from technological change as never valid? That's not what you're saying, is it?

Let me offer you an example of european sausage-making that you probably know: the new privacy protection regulation. Where I live, it actually weakens some current provisions of national law. And I know that several lobbyists were at work in Brussels to include in this regulation the "self-regulation" of the holders and processors of personal data. It may seem to advance privacy protections, and it may seem to be a reaction to new technology, but the reality is that it came about also due to pressure from business lobbyists to limit the reach of future jurisprudence built on the charter of fundamental rights, such as the "shock" ruling on the "right to forget", or the abolition of "safe harbor", and also to limit the reach of national legislation (a regulation, not a directive...).

 

[Yeekim]

@innonimatu Neither the fact that you are unhappy with choices made within this particular piece of law nor the fact that those choices reflect concerns of business lobby nor the fact that this limits national legislation does not change that this whole issue would not/did not exist in pre-digital world...

 

[Traitorfish]

@innonimatu Neither the fact that you are unhappy with choices made within this particular piece of law nor the fact that those choices reflect concerns of business lobby nor the fact that this limits national legislation does not change that this whole issue would not/did not exist in pre-digital world...

So we've gone from "most legislation is useful" to "most legislation expresses the anxieties of the powerful"?

That seems like quite a retreat.

 

[Hehehe]

Which is also an incorrect comparison, giving post-WW2 realities, such as Cold War, Marshall plan, etc. USSR was economically weaker, devastated by war and was unable to give the same level of economic support to its European allies, as US could.

If you want to gauge the effectiveness of Marshall aid, we can look at countries that had a liberal democratic system, but did not receive Marshall aid. One such country would be Finland, which had about triple the GDP compared to East Germany in 1990. This is in spite of reparations paid to the Soviet Union. Again, clearly, the Soviet system proves its inferiority.

Also, it is rather curious how every country that was under Soviet control seems to be poor. It's quite the coincidence. I wonder what could have caused this mysterious turn of events.

Yes, and ignored its comparison with India.

As I've already told you, I never said that the political system is the only thing that matters. Also, it does seem like India has made a fair bit of gains since its independence under the democratic system.

Also, that could be evidence that a command economy is not so good for development as compared to a market economy, not that a non-democratic system is worse.

Free democracy is, to some extent at least, tied to the free market. Without democracy, there is nothing to keep the government in check. With nothing to keep the government in check, the government has an interest to pervert the economy and thus mess with the free market.

Not sure what that Wiki link shows. How familiar are you with Singapore's political system?

Yes, more familiar than you. I realize that the democracy in Singapore has its problems. But it does still have a democratic system, even if it has its flaws. Also, even if I were to grant you that Singapore is a totally authoritarian system, no system is judged by its outliers, but rather by its averages, which Singapore is not.

EDIT: It's also worth pointing out that in terms of GDP per capita, Singapore is behind many liberal democracies.

And what did you cover about China?

Do you even read the thread you posted?

 

[Yeekim]

So we've gone from "most legislation is useful" to "most legislation expresses the anxieties of the powerful"?

That seems like quite a retreat.

Legislators had to (re)address the issue of privacy protection because we live in an age of Internet, e-commerce and Big Data, i.e. because of changes in our lives brought about and made possible by new technology.
Whether those legislators were up to the task and whether they found a good balance between all justified interests or not, is a whole different question.
Innonimatu seems to think they did not and I don't wish to argue, firstly because I'm not super-familiar with the regulation under question and secondly because it is irrelevant to my point.
EDIT: I should have written "some of those choices may or may not reflect concerns of business lobby" instead, but see above. It's not like I was drafting recitals to a directive...

 

[red_elk]

If you want to gauge the effectiveness of Marshall aid

I stated Marshall aid as one of the reasons, not even the main one. You ignored all the others.
Like USA alone having 50% of world's GDP after WW2. The fact that the countries aligned with the West were usually richer proves nothing about effectiveness of their government system.

One such country would be Finland, which had about triple the GDP compared to East Germany in 1990. This is in spite of reparations paid to the Soviet Union.

Are you sure you want to compare reparations paid by Finland with those paid by East Germany?

As I've already told you, I never said that the political system is the only thing that matters.

Well, you were the one who started comparing Chinese and Singapore GDP per capita with Western countries.
But when I tried to compare them with India, which is much more relevant, suddenly political system became not the only thing which matters.

 

[Hehehe]

I stated Marshall aid as one of the reasons, not even the main one. You ignored all the others.
Like USA alone having 50% of world's GDP after WW2. The fact that the countries aligned with the West were usually richer proves nothing about effectiveness of their government system.

You specifically cited US aid (ie. Marshall plan) as the reason why the West was doing better. I showed you that this is not the case.

Are you sure you want to compare reparations paid by Finland with those paid by East Germany?

Interesting, do tell me, how much reparations did USSR steal from East Germany?

Well, you were the one who started comparing Chinese and Singapore GDP per capita with Western countries.
But when I tried to compare them with India, which is much more relevant, suddenly political system became not the only thing which matters.

First of all, it was the opponents of democracy who argued that China or Singapore are "better" than Western democracies. I showed you that this is not the case. As for these comparisons, it is you who argued that it is not valid. In response to this, I provided much better comparisons. As for the comparison between India and China, no it is not valid, there are significant differences between the two (why is it that I apparently can't use this line but you can?). Also, as for comparisons, how about China vs South Korea then?

Look man, I don't know why you argue this point. It is obvious that communist countries are hellholes. There is no denying their inferiority. What do you hope to gain by this? Also, if the inferiority of communist countries isn't because of communism, then please, by all means, do tell me why that is? I'd like to hear your explanation? There is no getting around it, the communist system was a massive failure, and every country that was subjected to it, just happens to be poor due to some weird coincidence.

 

[red_elk]

You specifically cited US aid (ie. Marshall plan) as the reason why the West was doing better.

No, I mentioned Marshall plan because we were talking about Western and Eastern Germany. And it's one of the reasons, along with Soviet reparations, why Western Germany was richer than Eastern one.

Interesting, do tell me, how much reparations did USSR steal from East Germany?

How much salary do you steal from your employer?
Looks like you don't know what reparation actually is. Enlighten yourself.

First of all, it was the opponents of democracy who argued that China or Singapore are "better" than Western democracies.

Who and where said that?

Look man, I don't know why you argue this point. It is obvious that communist countries are hellholes. There is no denying their inferiority. What do you hope to gain by this? Also, if the inferiority of communist countries isn't because of communism, then please, by all means, do tell me why that is? I'd like to hear your explanation? There is no getting around it, the communist system was a massive failure, and every country that was subjected to it, just happens to be poor due to some weird coincidence.

Well, just a reminder, we were talking about alleged "inherent superiority" of Western democracy over all other existing and perspective forms of government. Your only substantial argument was, that it leads to better economic development. When Aelf and I gave you a few examples of the opposite, you said it's incorrect to directly compare countries by GDP only. Which basically, invalidates your original argument.

Everything else on your part was ideological stuff, like "obvious hellhole", "massive failure" etc., which proves nothing, only states your personal opinion.

 

[Hehehe]

No, I mentioned Marshall plan because we were talking about Western and Eastern Germany. And it's one of the reasons, along with Soviet reparations, why Western Germany was richer than Eastern one.

Yes, and I showed you a comparison which proved you wrong.

How much salary do you steal from your employer?
Looks like you don't know what reparation actually is. Enlighten yourself.

Then what was the amount USSR stole? How much? A number?

Who and where said that?

I believe it was Aelf, but correct me if I'm wrong (you're just as capable of reading this thread as I am)

Well, just a reminder, we were talking about alleged "inherent superiority" of Western democracy over all other existing and perspective forms of government. Your only substantial argument was, that it leads to better economic development. When Aelf and I gave you a few examples of the opposite, you said it's incorrect to directly compare countries by GDP only. Which basically, invalidates your original argument.

Everything else on your part was ideological stuff, like "obvious hellhole", "massive failure" etc., which proves nothing, only states your personal opinion.

You gave false examples. Democracies beat both China and Singapore (and Singapore is at least partially democratic), at least in wealth (was there some other metric you wanted to use?)

My good man, proof is in the pudding. Liberal western democracies are the best countries on this planet, in terms of wealth and desirability. "Real" communism may have never been tried, but whenever it has been tried, it has led to the deaths of millions and millions of people. That alone says a lot about that system.

 

[red_elk]

Yes, and I showed you a comparison which proved you wrong.

You didn't. How your example about Finland supposed to disprove the role of Marshall plan in restoration of West Germany? It's another country.

Then what was the amount USSR stole? How much? A number?

I already answered - as much as you are stealing from your employer every month. Zero.
Well, I'm not 100% sure you aren't stealing anything, but let's just assume that's the case.

You gave false examples. Democracies beat both China and Singapore

What you mean by "beat"? You asked for examples of successful non-democracies, you were given them. Comparing their economic development with Western countries by GDP per capita is incorrect, as you admitted yourself. You argument about "inherent superiority" isn't substantiated by anything so far.

 

[Hehehe]

You didn't. How your example about Finland supposed to disprove the role of Marshall plan in restoration of West Germany? It's another country.

But it does. It proves that the liberal democratic free market system flourishes even without Marshall aid.

I already answered - as much as you are stealing from your employer every month. Zero.
Well, I'm not 100% sure you aren't stealing anything, but let's just assume that's the case.

I'm asking for an amount here. Give me a number.

What you mean by "beat"? You asked for examples of successful non-democracies, you were given them. Comparing their economic development with Western countries by GDP per capita is incorrect, as you admitted yourself. You argument about "inherent superiority" isn't substantiated by anything so far.

You argued that such direct comparisons are incorrect. I think they are relevant. Then I gave you examples which are more relevant in your own framework.

As I see it, you have two positions you can argue:
A: The political system of a country does have an effect on the wealth of a country. If this is the case, then liberal democracy has to be a pretty damn good system, given that it produces the best results, as proven by wealth metrics (or, at least it consistently correlates with good economic outcomes). Whereas there is no proof that any alternative system could do better.
Or
B: The political system of a country doesn't have much of an effect on the wealth of a country, in which case I see absolutely no reason to give up my liberties, since it cannot, even in theory, lead to an increase in wealth

 

[red_elk]

But it does. It proves that the liberal democratic free market system flourishes even without Marshall aid.

So, your claim is that democratic system can work without external aid? Well, I never said otherwise. It doesn't prove its superiority. And I don't see how it's related to the argument about Germany, anyway.

I'm asking for an amount here. Give me a number.

Again, the number is zero.
Why you asking the question, quoting my message with direct answer to it?

You argued that such direct comparisons are incorrect. I think they are relevant.

We've been at this point already. If GDP metric is relevant, we are going back to comparison with India. Why democratic India has five times less GDP/capita than their neighboring undemocratic China?

 

[Hehehe]

So, your claim is that democratic system can work without external aid? Well, I never said otherwise. It doesn't prove its superiority. And I don't see how it's related to the argument about Germany, anyway.

Even without external aid, the democratic system produces superior results.

Again, the number is zero.
Why you asking the question, quoting my message with direct answer to it?

Ok, you can call it "just dues" or whatever it is in your mind. What's the number?

We've been at this point already. If GDP metric is relevant, we are going back to comparison with India. Why democratic India has five times less GDP/capita than their neighboring undemocratic China?

The comparison with India is not relevant because wealth is a factor of many things, of which only one is the political system. China vs. India is not relevant because there are significant differences between them, that go beyond the political system of a country. It was Aelf that brought up West vs. China/Singapore. I showed that democracy still wins. Then you claimed that this comparison is not relevant. Which brings us back to the original argument.

And I remind you, it was you who claimed that there can be a system that is better than western liberal democracy. The onus is on you to prove it. The root of the argument is this: best countries on this planet are Western democracies. This is an irrefutable claim. There is absolutely no reason to believe that there could be a better system.

 

[red_elk]

Even without external aid, the democratic system produces superior results.

Which is only your opinion and the main point of discussion. You keep asserting it, but failed to prove so far.

What's the number?

In third time, zero.

The comparison with India is not relevant because wealth is a factor of many things, of which only one is the political system. China vs. India is not relevant because there are significant differences between them, that go beyond the political system of a country.

How can it be that comparison with Western countries is relevant, but comparison with India isn't?

The root of the argument is this: best countries on this planet are Western democracies. This is an irrefutable claim.

No, I don't agree with this.
What's the notion "best countries" even stands for?

 

[Hehehe]

Which is only your opinion and the main point of discussion. You keep asserting it, but failed to prove so far.

Proof is in the pudding. Better economic outcomes are the proof.

In third time, zero.

Ok, so USSR didn't exploit Germany? 0 wealth taken? I guess East Germany must have had an inferior economic system then, given that it was so poor.

How can it be that comparison with Western countries is relevant, but comparison with India isn't?

Ok, then, let us say that all of these comparisons are non-applicable. Please, do give me a relevant comparison where non-democratic system beats democratic system due to the political system. If you can't do that, then it seems like you have no proof that any system could ever beat Western democracies.

Nope, don't remind me about things I never done. Unless you can quote where I said that.

This is where we're talking past each other. You claimed that there can be a system that is better than democracy. I argue that there is absolutely no proof for this. In reality there is zero reason to think this.

 

[red_elk]

And I remind you, it was you who claimed that there can be a system that is better than western liberal democracy. The onus is on you to prove it.

If I said there can be life on another planets and you said no, this is impossible - who must be proving his argument?