Democracy and Freedom

[dblack]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

 

[Ravi]

Are you referring to social issues, i.e. gay marriage, abortion, etc....or something else?

 

[editec]

Democracy without civil liberties is the ultimate tyranny.

 

[dblack]

Are you referring to social issues, i.e. gay marriage, abortion, etc....or something else?

I wasn't really referring to 'issues'. Rather the general idea of whether more democracy would be a good thing or not.

 

[occupied]

Who are the elite in our country? It is mostly the billionaire class. They have special rights unto themselves, their own tax code, and the ability to pick up the phone and speak to practically anyone. They cannot be voted out or made to answer for exploitation. Direct democracy may not be a good idea as dumbed down and bound by propaganda as we have become but it is a noble thing to work towards. To not work towards greater democracy is to give up the fight against concentration of power, call it fascism or oligarchy or whatever but it is the reward for letting a few unelected people have absolute economic power over our lives.

 

[dblack]

Who are the elite in our country? It is mostly the billionaire class. They have special rights unto themselves, their own tax code, and the ability to pick up the phone and speak to practically anyone. They cannot be voted out or made to answer for exploitation. Direct democracy may not be a good idea as dumbed down and bound by propaganda as we have become but it is a noble thing to work towards. To not work towards greater democracy is to give up the fight against concentration of power, call it fascism or oligarchy or whatever but it is the reward for letting a few unelected people have absolute economic power over our lives.

So you see democracy as a counter to economic power?

 

[occupied]

Who are the elite in our country? It is mostly the billionaire class. They have special rights unto themselves, their own tax code, and the ability to pick up the phone and speak to practically anyone. They cannot be voted out or made to answer for exploitation. Direct democracy may not be a good idea as dumbed down and bound by propaganda as we have become but it is a noble thing to work towards. To not work towards greater democracy is to give up the fight against concentration of power, call it fascism or oligarchy or whatever but it is the reward for letting a few unelected people have absolute economic power over our lives.

So you see democracy as a counter to economic power?

Yes, without the people constantly pushing for democracy, power will concentrate in ever fewer hands, direct democracy is probably an impossibility but it is the goal we must work towards or before we know it we will not even have the illusion of democracy.

 

[dblack]

Who are the elite in our country? It is mostly the billionaire class. They have special rights unto themselves, their own tax code, and the ability to pick up the phone and speak to practically anyone. They cannot be voted out or made to answer for exploitation. Direct democracy may not be a good idea as dumbed down and bound by propaganda as we have become but it is a noble thing to work towards. To not work towards greater democracy is to give up the fight against concentration of power, call it fascism or oligarchy or whatever but it is the reward for letting a few unelected people have absolute economic power over our lives.

So you see democracy as a counter to economic power?

Yes, without the people constantly pushing for democracy, power will concentrate in ever fewer hands, direct democracy is probably an impossibility but it is the goal we must work towards or before we know it we will not even have the illusion of democracy.

Should democracy also be used to counter religious power? What about media power? (eg the 'hollywood' elite, sports figures, etc...)

 

[Defiant1]

Who are the elite in our country? It is mostly the billionaire class. They have special rights unto themselves, their own tax code, and the ability to pick up the phone and speak to practically anyone. They cannot be voted out or made to answer for exploitation. Direct democracy may not be a good idea as dumbed down and bound by propaganda as we have become but it is a noble thing to work towards. To not work towards greater democracy is to give up the fight against concentration of power, call it fascism or oligarchy or whatever but it is the reward for letting a few unelected people have absolute economic power over our lives.

So you see democracy as a counter to economic power?

Yes, without the people constantly pushing for democracy, power will concentrate in ever fewer hands, direct democracy is probably an impossibility but it is the goal we must work towards or before we know it we will not even have the illusion of democracy.

So your idea of democracy is to use mob rule to inhibit the freedoms of people you don't like.

Got it.

 

[occupied]

Informed democracy is proof against any undue influence, unfortunately we are currently in the midst of a resurgence in authoritarianism, probably due to the media who have given up their mission to responsibly inform. The fact that there is even a discussion on the appropriate level of democracy is alarming to me, it's like giving up in a way, the work of building a democracy is never done.

 

[Ravi]

Are you referring to social issues, i.e. gay marriage, abortion, etc....or something else?

I wasn't really referring to 'issues'. Rather the general idea of whether more democracy would be a good thing or not.

There are some things it is logical to vote on and let the majority decide. There are some things that cannot be voted on by the majority, for example outlawing guns within a certain city.

So no, we have neither too much democracy or too little. People often forget that you cannot make rules that violate the constitution, however, and attempt to do just that.

 

[occupied]

So you see democracy as a counter to economic power?

Yes, without the people constantly pushing for democracy, power will concentrate in ever fewer hands, direct democracy is probably an impossibility but it is the goal we must work towards or before we know it we will not even have the illusion of democracy.

So your idea of democracy is to use mob rule to inhibit the freedoms of people you don't like.

Got it.

How the hell did you get that from my comment?

 

[Defiant1]

Informed democracy is proof against any undue influence, unfortunately we are currently in the midst of a resurgence in authoritarianism, probably due to the media who have given up their mission to responsibly inform. The fact that there is even a discussion on the appropriate level of democracy is alarming to me, it's like giving up in a way, the work of building a democracy is never done.

This gets even better. You would make laws to control the media, forcing them to "inform" the populace according to your beliefs.

Got it.

 

[dblack]

Informed democracy is proof against any undue influence, unfortunately we are currently in the midst of a resurgence in authoritarianism, probably due to the media who have given up their mission to responsibly inform. The fact that there is even a discussion on the appropriate level of democracy is alarming to me, it's like giving up in a way, the work of building a democracy is never done.

Well, I certainly agree with you about the resurgence in authoritarianism. But I'm not sure democracy is proof against that kind of trend. As far as 'giving up' goes, I was never really on that train. (eg my views expressed in the OP)

 

[dblack]

There are some things it is logical to vote on and let the majority decide. There are some things that cannot be voted on by the majority, for example outlawing guns within a certain city.

Which things? What rules would govern which things the majority can decide on and which they can't?

 

[occupied]

Informed democracy is proof against any undue influence, unfortunately we are currently in the midst of a resurgence in authoritarianism, probably due to the media who have given up their mission to responsibly inform. The fact that there is even a discussion on the appropriate level of democracy is alarming to me, it's like giving up in a way, the work of building a democracy is never done.

This gets even better. You would make laws to control the media, forcing them to "inform" the populace according to your beliefs.

Got it.

You are looking for a partisan battle where none is offered. I am discussing the concentration of political power, never a good thing, not any particular plan or agenda I personally have. Instead of making assumptions about my motives perhaps you should address the topic and tell us what you think is an appropriate level of democracy in our country, I say there is not enough are you saying that there is too much?

 

[dblack]

You are looking for a partisan battle where none is offered.

Well said. It would be nice if we could avoid that here (though a naive hope perhaps).

 

[Defiant1]

Informed democracy is proof against any undue influence, unfortunately we are currently in the midst of a resurgence in authoritarianism, probably due to the media who have given up their mission to responsibly inform. The fact that there is even a discussion on the appropriate level of democracy is alarming to me, it's like giving up in a way, the work of building a democracy is never done.

This gets even better. You would make laws to control the media, forcing them to "inform" the populace according to your beliefs.

Got it.

You are looking for a partisan battle where none is offered. I am discussing the concentration of political power, never a good thing, not any particular plan or agenda I personally have. Instead of making assumptions about my motives perhaps you should address the topic and tell us what you think is an appropriate level of democracy in our country, I say there is not enough are you saying that there is too much?

How am I making this partisan? I'm just interpreting what you have posted.

I do believe we have too much democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic.

I would prefer we go back to states electing Senators.
Primary elections held exclusively by the parties involved.
More attention to states' rights.
And more emphasis put back on property rights.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democracy is a perfect vehicle to deprive anyone of freedom.

Democracy in Egypt is a good example.

 

[occupied]

Everyone wants some kind of say in how their country is run and everyone should have some kind of input but I frequently run across references to democracy as "mob rule", the opinion that people are too stupid to know what is good for them, I know that is the very basis of Fascism and wonder if the person stating that opinion knows that.