Today, if you listen to anything on TV, or at school ,or anywhere, inevitably democracy will be labeled as the ultimate politcal virtue.
At my University, example thesis questions indicate such by constantly comparing democracies in favorable conditions. Equality, democracy, human rights, etc. are all compared as if they stem from one another. I'd like to debunk this.
My personal opinion is that democracy is flouted as the justification for any and everything because it is politcally correct. We all know the U.S. was not formed as a democracy yet this fallacy has permeated everything. People are told to look towards democracy because it makes them feel like their opinion and input in the political process is equal to everyone else, another thing we all know not to be true.
So, I start here: Name a financially responsible democratic nation state.
Define responsible anyway you think is 'responsible and 'democratic' to any degree you think (I have a feeling I'll get trolled for this...)
Here were initial responses I got on G+
Greece, Singapore, Canada, and Sweden
Here is the simple information I got (the three main (generally accepted) Macro stats and debt-GDP.
Greece - haha Singapore - Debt to GDP is 117% =/ Overall taxation is about 10%!! Almost 20% GDP growth .... UE is 2%, inflation is 3%. Sweden - Is pretty decent. They are a slightly more innocuous banking cartel player than the other states, but they have 8% UE and GDP growth of 4.4% and 35% Debt to GDP. Canada - UE is 7.2%, GDP growth is 2%, inflation is 1.6%, debt to GDP is over 105%...
Does anyone else have any insight either for or against blind support of democracy?
I'd imagine Democracy: The God That Failed would be of use.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
z1235 has been promoting the hell out of Beyond Democracy. Says he's gotten a lot of positive results by recommending it.
I'll check it out.
I'm familiar with Hoppe. I'll check out that other one, although I am not pumped about paying for it...
And no one has any other democratic state with a good example of financial responsibility? No one wants to say Japan? Or something that is at least defensible?
Australia circa 2006 had no federal government debt (in fact a surplus), and average 3% inflation. This was a result of the Liberal government paying off the previous Labor government's debt over a decade. The next year (2007), the Labor party won the federal election and proceeded to spend. Today the federal government's debt is somewhere around 20% of GDP - with a new round of spending and taxation just around the corner (i.e. in a month and a half!). The current government, however, is immensely unpopular and will be gone by the end of next year (hopefully much sooner).
Government debt, however, should not be the only thing to look at, since during the period in which the Liberal government paid down the federal debt, they put several policies into effect to encourage a housing bubble that may be in its dying days.
Oh trust me I have some very long rants against democracy that I plan to post in later weeks. It's really just about the most dreadful system imaginable. But let's just leave it at the fact that it not only deals with an area of human organization which should not exist, but it hands over the division of labor in handling this organization to anyone. It literally goes against the very thing which society is founded upon: The division of labor. Anyone can vote, no matter how stupid, smart, delusional, or self serving, and there is absolutely no factor which pulls this state of affair to a state of positive equilibrium. The market will always give people what they really want, as an end, the product which they desire. Democracy will, at best, give people the means that they want, but there's no way to test the end, there's no way to really say "X" policy was good, or "Y policy was bad", in this changing and incredibly complex world of ours.
Democracy sucks, and it is a god which people associate with freedom and liberation.
Oh well if we're just ranting against democracy, we could always point to how even the Founding Fathers, who disagreed on plenty of things, seemed to agree on this one...
It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.
-Alexander Hamilton Speech in New York, urging ratification of the U.S. Constitution (1788-06-21)
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
-James Madison Federalist No. 10 (1787-11-22)
Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. [...] Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.
Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. [...]
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.
-John Adams Letter to John Taylor (1814)
One wise man summed it up with “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.”
Democracy is no form of governance, it’s a form of rule.
I have always liked Ron Paul's article on LewRockwell.com about democracy. I've literally printed it out and left it in random places before hoping someone might read it. lol
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html
Heather:I have always liked Ron Paul's article on LewRockwell.com about democracy. I've literally printed it out and left it in random places before hoping someone might read it. lol
you sly boots
Democracy is not a type of government. It is a way to decide what type of government (if any) you have.
I really would like some serious debate on the viability of democracy in a mondern sense (particularly economic).
Like, if anyone can debunk the logic behind "Democracies don't start wars with other democracies" as a plus for democracy (without using Hoppe).
Aristophanes:Democracy is no form of governance, it’s a form of rule.Democracy is not a type of government.
From 39-45 democratic Germany and democratic UK, France, USA fought eachother.
Anyway, the inherent superiority of 'democracy' is such a big part of the propaganda of democratic states, and 'making the world safe for democracy' such a big part of their war propaganda in particular, that it is clear why they have not greatly waged war on eachother - since their legitimacy is based on the divinity of democracy. Not to mention that in the history to date, virtually all democracies are simply under the hegemony of a single state, the USA.
JJ, you did read further, yes? I wasn't disagreeing with you (God forbid). There is a difference in 'type of government' and the decision on it. Democracies can choose tyranny or freedom or any combination thereof, but they do not choose "democracy" because it itself is not a kind of goverment...
Oh, yeah? Even by 1939 you still consider Germany a democracy?
I think democracies don't attack each other because they can co opt each others political resources to their favor. The U.S. woiuld have sided with Germany (or been neutral) in both WWs if the people and their economic connections had won out over the British and their political influence.
Not to mention that in the history to date, virtually all democracies are simply under the hegemony of a single state, the USA.
This is a good point. Much of "democratic" history has been shadowed by the U.S.'s democratic use of the A-bomb om innocent civil...I mean Imperial nips. Who'd step to that?
Well over 50% of the German franchise voted for extremely statist parties even in the last clearly free elections - the Nazi party just happened to be the most popular of them. The UK and France were willing to side with a dictatorship that owed its governance to a military coup (Poland) against a democracy whose policies were at least for the most part in line with the political desires of the majority of its citizens (Germany).
I guess I thought it was in 1933 that they elected Hitler and then in 34-36 that he consolidated power and cancelled elections (revoking the democratic principle).
But then you'd have to say that the USA is only a democracy on the days it has elections. A more important qualification than elections is majority rule.
Not necessarily (my definition differs from the Establishment). If Hitler revoked elections it is no bearing over the Constitutional parameters in the U.S. It did for Germany, however.
Aristophanes: I'm familiar with Hoppe. I'll check out that other one, although I am not pumped about paying for it...
Here's the first chapter (free pdf). Some links to articles about it and interviews with the authors.
The book is $0.99 on Kindle (free Kindle app download for any device).
How does one determine the "virtue" of any given system?
What is virtue?
Neodoxy: The market will always give people what they really want, as an end, the product which they desire.
Is that what all people want in life? Products? Stuff?
Is that all you want? Stuff?
bloomj31:How does one determine the "virtue" of any given system? What is virtue? Neodoxy: The market will always give people what they really want, as an end, the product which they desire. Is that what all people want in life? Products? Stuff? Is that all you want? Stuff?
JohnnyDoe: Or whatever they want, whatever that might be.
How much money do I need to have to be able to play by a different set of rules than everyone else in a market?
People are told to look towards democracy because it makes them feel like their opinion and input in the political process is equal to everyone else
I can't imagine anything other than such ego stroking being the basis for its popularity. I've always been too elitist to like the idea of anyone else having a say in my life. The idea that everyone could have a say in my life is about as horrific as I can imagine.
I can't imagine anything other than such ego stroking being the basis for its popularity.
I totally agree. Although, I don't think people who support democracy think that. haha
Bloom:
Liberalism is a doctrine directed entirely towards the conduct of men in this world. In the last analysis, it has nothing else in view than the advancement of their outward, material welfare and does not concern itself directly with their inner, spiritual and metaphysical needs. It does not promise men happiness and contentment, but only the most abundant possible satisfaction of all those desires that can be satisfied by the things of the outer world. Liberalism has often been reproached for this purely external and materialistic attitude toward what is earthly and transitory. The life of man, it is said, does not consist in eating and drinking. There are higher and more important needs than food and drink, shelter and clothing. Even the greatest earthly riches cannot give man happiness; they leave his inner self, his soul, unsatisfied and empty. The most serious error of liberalism has been that it has had nothing to offer man's deeper and nobler aspirations. But the critics who speak in this vein show only that they have a very imperfect and materialistic conception of these higher and nobler needs. Social policy, with the means that are at its disposal, can make men rich or poor, but it can never succeed in making them happy or in satisfying their inmost yearnings. Here all external expedients fail. All that social policy can do is to remove the outer causes of pain and suffering; it can further a system that feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, and houses the homeless. Happiness and contentment do not depend on food, clothing, and shelter, but, above all, on what a man cherishes within himself It is not from a disdain of spiritual goods that liberalism concerns itself exclusively with man's material well-being, but from a conviction that what is highest and deepest in man cannot be touched by any outward regulation. It seeks to produce only outer well-being because it knows that inner, spiritual riches cannot come to man from without, but only from within his own heart. It does not aim at creating anything but the outward preconditions for the development of the inner life. And there can be no doubt that the relatively prosperous individual of the twentieth century can more readily satisfy his spiritual needs than, say, the individual of the tenth century, who was given no respite from anxiety over the problem of eking out barely enough for survival or from the dangers that threatened him from his enemies. To be sure, to those who, like the followers of many Asiatic and medieval Christian sects, accept the doctrine of complete asceticism and who take as the ideal of human life the poverty and freedom from want of the birds of the forest and the fish of the sea, we can make no reply when they reproach liberalism for its materialistic attitude. We can only ask them to let us go our way undisturbed, just as we do not hinder them from getting to heaven in their own fashion. Let them shut themselves up in their cells, away from men and the world, in peace. The overwhelming majority of our contemporaries cannot understand the ascetic ideal. But once one rejects the principle of the ascetic conduct of life; one cannot reproach liberalism for aiming at outer well-being.
But the critics who speak in this vein show only that they have a very imperfect and materialistic conception of these higher and nobler needs. Social policy, with the means that are at its disposal, can make men rich or poor, but it can never succeed in making them happy or in satisfying their inmost yearnings. Here all external expedients fail. All that social policy can do is to remove the outer causes of pain and suffering; it can further a system that feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, and houses the homeless. Happiness and contentment do not depend on food, clothing, and shelter, but, above all, on what a man cherishes within himself It is not from a disdain of spiritual goods that liberalism concerns itself exclusively with man's material well-being, but from a conviction that what is highest and deepest in man cannot be touched by any outward regulation. It seeks to produce only outer well-being because it knows that inner, spiritual riches cannot come to man from without, but only from within his own heart. It does not aim at creating anything but the outward preconditions for the development of the inner life. And there can be no doubt that the relatively prosperous individual of the twentieth century can more readily satisfy his spiritual needs than, say, the individual of the tenth century, who was given no respite from anxiety over the problem of eking out barely enough for survival or from the dangers that threatened him from his enemies.
To be sure, to those who, like the followers of many Asiatic and medieval Christian sects, accept the doctrine of complete asceticism and who take as the ideal of human life the poverty and freedom from want of the birds of the forest and the fish of the sea, we can make no reply when they reproach liberalism for its materialistic attitude. We can only ask them to let us go our way undisturbed, just as we do not hinder them from getting to heaven in their own fashion. Let them shut themselves up in their cells, away from men and the world, in peace. The overwhelming majority of our contemporaries cannot understand the ascetic ideal. But once one rejects the principle of the ascetic conduct of life; one cannot reproach liberalism for aiming at outer well-being.
Mises, Liberalism.
bloomj31: JohnnyDoe: Or whatever they want, whatever that might be. How much money do I need to have to be able to play by a different set of rules than everyone else in a market?
JohnnyDoe: You wouldn`t be able to aquire a large enough buying power to control/influence to a large extent the free market, in a free market.
Exactly.
Bloomj31, aspiring Palpatine?
If only acquiring power were as simple as moving to Korriban and learning to shoot lightning from one's hands. Le sigh.