Democracy

[Hammurabi]

What does the word "democracy" mean today"?. Like all political systems it does have short comings and imperfections, what power if any do we actually have as a society. This subject is part of a bigger issue that I have in mind but I would love to see this thread going...

[JMMY]

It's quite hard to generalize democracy; you should be more specific in your definition of democracy. Please narrow your idea, like "what does demoncracy mean in America today?" or "How has the fundamental idea of demoncracy evolved over time?"

[Fido]

Originally Posted by JMMY

It's quite hard to generalize democracy; you should be more specific in your definition of democracy. Please narrow your idea, like "what does demoncracy mean in America today?" or "How has the fundamental idea of demoncracy evolved over time?"

It is not hard to generalize in the least about democracy. What is hard by comparison is to define the difference between democratic and democracy. Democracy is to an athelete what democratic is to athletic. Not everyone who is athletic is an athelete, and not every society that is democratic in some sense is a democracy in any true sense. Too much is given to parties, and to classes, and too many rights are reserved to property in our society for it to be a democracy. A democracy is self government. It is not self rule, for no one rules in a democracy. Rule is not government, but authority. No one should have any more than influence over another in the conduct of his affairs. If one man's affairs become the business of another for one reason or another, then no third party should have more than influence upon them.

No one has the right to take rights from another. No one has the right to surrender rights for his children that his children in another time might find useful. Only the most extreme of emergancies should substitute majority rule for government of consensus. It is consensus that make democracies. Everyone should get greased. Everyone should benefit from society if there is some benefit to be had. Everyone should have justice and political equality, with the expectation that economic equality should be sought. No one should inherit, to end the main reason for injustice and inequality. Each should be assured equality of opportunity and education from birth

Simply put, democracy is a defensive form of social organization. No person can be trusted to defend rights for another. As the people require a common defense, so the people should know a common benefit. Each person should have the consent to give or hold on any affair touching on his welfare. Individual rights, and regional rights cannot be traded for political power. No majority can remove any minority from their rights. It is not the object of government to hide behind the rights of the people, but to defend those rights for all people. each mans legacy should be a state at peace and well able to defend itself. No one should need more than this to make his way. What ever a man may make in his life time can go back to the common wealth. Every person should be able to count on the common wealth for help, or start up capital, but again, to every community should their wealth be returned. Property should pay the cost of government to put pressure on it and to raise the price of labor. Three qualities only are necessary for democracy, and democracy is beyond reach to the extent that these qualities are missing. They are, Liberty, equality, and justice. These are the qualities of democracies from ancient times, and they are eternal.

[Didymos Thomas]

The function of rights with regards to individual liberty in democracy is a new one.
I think, for our times, we have moved passed the age of enlightenment thinking - that democracy can be used to defend and promote liberty. Instead, it seems democracy has returned to it's original function, even in much of the rhetoric. Yes, democracy is still about public defense, but not defense of our rights. Instead, it is about economic defense. Admittedly or not, people are generally more concerned with their pocket book than their liberties. If they have money, they care little for freedom.
Look at Russia. The Russian people have, at the ballot box, given up liberty within their democracy, most even embrace the growing authoritarian nature of their government. As the nature becomes wealthier, the people do not care. Shopping malls and new cars are wonderful distractions.

[Leaf]

Democracy is rule by the people. That is the original (Greek) meaning of the word, and this definition cannot be tampered with.

However, the concept of democracy has changed so much that we can now actually have a discussion about this. This change was brought about by the practical difficulties in implementing the rule by the people of ancient Greece (which, arguably, wasn't rule by the people, since women, slaves and poor people were excluded from the discussions). Today, democracy, I think, is rule by the majority - in whatever form that may take. However, democracy also inherently includes a respect for the minority. If the minority are ill-treated, it is not a democracy - in the meaning the concept carries today.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Look at Russia. The Russian people have, at the ballot box, given up liberty within their democracy, most even embrace the growing authoritarian nature of their government. As the nature becomes wealthier, the people do not care. Shopping malls and new cars are wonderful distractions.

There have been many speculations regarding Russia and its apparent lack of democratic ideals (this is also relevant for many other up-and-coming countries, such as China). One theory has been that the Russians can only be ruled authoritaritatively - that the only truly functional rule of Russia is authoritarian. I don't know whether I agree with this, but the discussion is interesting. It goes back to the question of whether democracy is truly a universal form of political rule, or whether political systems are determined culturally, economically, etc.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Democracy is rule by the people. That is the original (Greek) meaning of the word, and this definition cannot be tampered with.

However, the concept of democracy has changed so much that we can now actually have a discussion about this. This change was brought about by the practical difficulties in implementing the rule by the people of ancient Greece (which, arguably, wasn't rule by the people, since women, slaves and poor people were excluded from the discussions). Today, democracy, I think, is rule by the majority - in whatever form that may take. However, democracy also inherently includes a respect for the minority. If the minority are ill-treated, it is not a democracy - in the meaning the concept carries today.



There have been many speculations regarding Russia and its apparent lack of democratic ideals (this is also relevant for many other up-and-coming countries, such as China). One theory has been that the Russians can only be ruled authoritaritatively - that the only truly functional rule of Russia is authoritarian. I don't know whether I agree with this, but the discussion is interesting. It goes back to the question of whether democracy is truly a universal form of political rule, or whether political systems are determined culturally, economically, etc.

It does not matter who robs the meaning our of words so the not so bright can be baffled. I would have you know that a definition is a concept. Define a square and you have the concept- square. But applied social forms of relationship, no firm definition is possible. People work out their own deal. Let me suggest that democracy, where it was most pure, was part of an egalitarian communal organization. It was not majority rule but a relentless search for consensus. No society could afford to count out a minority, least of all a 49% minority. Everyone had to be served by the society or it was feeding on them. It is not really different today. We all need justice. We all need better than majority rule. We all need to grasp the defensive nature of democracy. And when you look at societies like Rome and Greece whose democracy was first watered down and then destroyed, it is because of victory, it is because they made women second class citizens, and because they took slaves. Once unequal wealth was allowed to destroy economic equality political equality soon followed. When people can govern others they have no need to govern themselves. What you see with Plato, and Socrates is an attack on democracy. They equated worth in money with social worth. They forgot what every savage acting in a savage democracy knows, that no one's voice has more authority than it has honor. A primitives honor was to exceed his fellows in service to his community. In later democracy, this idea goes by the boards, and it is that one who can most easily conform the public will to his own who is considered great.

Your example of Russia is an interesting tale without much application to our society. It is far easier to find a democracy among natural communities than to build one from scratch. Russia in particular has been a vast battle field forever. Our effect on that society was to fracture it further, and there was no chance for them, coming from the sixth most industrial country to the second in very short order against the impediment of tyranny and rule by terror. But we injected our theory of the individual, the glories and the glamours of Capitalism into their thoughts, and encouraged what might well be considered a natural criminality in that people. The only thing that will tie that people together is force or freedom. They are many different peoples still, even after breakup. Many of these peoples were forever enemies of the others, and these differences go back beyond the Mongols and the Russ.

While democracy is natural to all people when equality was thought essential to survival; so soon as people can escape their social obligations and think only of themselves they do so. But these people do not choose between a strong society and a secure individual existence. When they choose an individual existence they lose the protection of a strong community and the community loses them, so each is weaker.

Look at our society. Property excuses itself from its obligation to the commonwealth, but the people must still support the society. And the people cannot support the military and fight the war on what the wealthy leave them from what they produce. This weakens us all. Why should we defend the wealthy and their wealth if they will not support the country? We fight for them as much as for ourselves. They benefit while we do not, and it is their property which is defended, but their property, which was once our property will not support its own protection. So why do we support property? It is because their rights have firm legal support while ours do not. And we all think of ourselves as wealthy; only reduced to poverty by fate. Look at us in the age of science blaming our empoverishment on luck and fate. Luck and fate have nothing to do with it. It is what happened in Greece and Rome, where the rich had long since abandoned the sense of democracy in preference to their limited view of self service.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Fido

Let me suggest that democracy, where it was most pure, was part of an egalitarian communal organization. (...) We all need justice. (...) Once unequal wealth was allowed to destroy economic equality political equality soon followed. When people can govern others they have no need to govern themselves. (...)

While democracy is natural to all people when equality was thought essential to survival; so soon as people can escape their social obligations and think only of themselves they do so. (...) When they choose an individual existence they lose the protection of a strong community and the community loses them, so each is weaker.

Look at our society. Property excuses itself from its obligation to the commonwealth, but the people must still support the society. (...) Why should we defend the wealthy and their wealth if they will not support the country? (...) They benefit while we do not, and it is their property which is defended, but their property, which was once our property will not support its own protection. So why do we support property? It is because their rights have firm legal support while ours do not. And we all think of ourselves as wealthy; only reduced to poverty by fate. Look at us in the age of science blaming our empoverishment on luck and fate. Luck and fate have nothing to do with it. (...)

Frankly, I completely disagree with your view on democracy. I don't believe that democracy necessarily has anything to do with economic equality, as you express (see the quote above) - but with political equality, yes, of course! However, political and economic equality should have nothing to do with each other. And I am aware that I am speaking purely theoretically, because fact is usually not that idealistic. However, if we stick to a theoretical discussion, it should be one man - one vote. Wealth and riches have nothing to do with that.

Moving to a more practical discussion, I hate to distinguish between the rich and the poor because the distinction and definitions are so fluid. I don't believe that you can set it up as the rich vs. the poor today - perhaps in the Third World, but not in Western Europe anymore. I'm not saying that we are all economically equal because, thank God, we are not, but the distinctions between the upper, middle, and lower classes are not easily disintguished today.

(And frankly I don't think there is anything wrong with economic inequality. I'm not rich - my father is disabled and not able to work, so I'm thankful to a society that provides us with a social safetynet and benefits - but I nevertheless believe that it's each man for himself. I do not believe in luck or fate as you say that we blame our empoverishment on - I believe in hard work and the free market, which has enabled all of us to make it for ourselves. I believe in the individual in a society - and I don't see how they can't function together.)

Originally Posted by Fido

(...) Our effect on that society was to fracture it further, and there was no chance for them, coming from the sixth most industrial country to the second in very short order against the impediment of tyranny and rule by terror. But we injected our theory of the individual, the glories and the glamours of Capitalism into their thoughts, and encouraged what might well be considered a natural criminality in that people. The only thing that will tie that people together is force or freedom. (...)

I don't know what you mean by "our effect" - I suppose you're talking about Western Europe and the USA with their capitalism. Fact is that capitalism and the free market has created the wealthiest society in the world today (Western Europe and the USA) - is it so weird that other societies attempt to imitate it? (And I know that it's been at the expense of other societies, and I don't endorse colonialism and new colonialism!) And Russia, I believe is a special case. The theory of the individual - as you call it - was forcefully kept out of the minds of the entire Eastern Europe and Russia for 70 years under a communist dictatorship. This was supposed to be a society with economic equality - which you seem to value so highly - and it didn't really work out that well.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Frankly, I completely disagree with your view on democracy. I don't believe that democracy necessarily has anything to do with economic equality, as you express (see the quote above) - but with political equality, yes, of course! However, political and economic equality should have nothing to do with each other. And I am aware that I am speaking purely theoretically, because fact is usually not that idealistic. However, if we stick to a theoretical discussion, it should be one man - one vote. Wealth and riches have nothing to do with that.

When you say: Frankly, do you realize you are making a reference to a barbarian people, The Franks, who considered themselves the Free, who made themselves masters of Europe from a marginal place on the continent? Certainly, they gave rise to the first feudal Kings, Pepin and Charles the Great, but do you think they could have done so if all the prizes of conquest were only bait for dischord? So you wish to speak freely, as a Frank.
True democracy has only existed where social equality was enforced. We have a republic. We vote for representatives. We do not have one man one vote. But, because we have so few representatives we are easily divided, and even purposely divided through Gerrimandering, to deny people their voice. Since we do not actually have the right to vote on what our representative decides, we do not have a vote. Then, even while we have a vote on the representative, money also has a vote. We talk to our representatives, but money swears. And it is considered that wealth, and property have the right to influence the course of government. Where do they get the right to influence government if not at the expense of average joe human beings? They are getting what they ask for from government, and it is not what people want. So, how is our situation improved by money having access to our government? The more the minority controls government the smaller and richer that minority becomes.

Moving to a more practical discussion, I hate to distinguish between the rich and the poor because the distinction and definitions are so fluid. I don't believe that you can set it up as the rich vs. the poor today - perhaps in the Third World, but not in Western Europe anymore. I'm not saying that we are all economically equal because, thank God, we are not, but the distinctions between the upper, middle, and lower classes are not easily disintguished today.

Come now, don't be shy about drawing a line in the dirt. The rich certainly know who they are, because they feel their interests are not the same as our own. I will be an enemy of the people; wrote Aristotle, quoting an oligarchic oath. Are you an enemy of the people? Do you look at us with all our empty bowls and pockets as the enemy of all your ensconced wealth? Look at how often they bring before the government some proposal that benefits only a fraction of the population, like the inheritance tax. Property once supported the country, and now labor must support the wealthy and the country. It is the cause of our hopelessness as a country, that the rich can make us slaves of necessity while they prevent us from having the justice that is our due.

(And frankly I don't think there is anything wrong with economic inequality. I'm not rich - my father is disabled and not able to work, so I'm thankful to a society that provides us with a social safetynet and benefits - but I nevertheless believe that it's each man for himself. I do not believe in luck or fate as you say that we blame our empoverishment on - I believe in hard work and the free market, which has enabled all of us to make it for ourselves. I believe in the individual in a society - and I don't see how they can't function together.)

That is the problem exactly. Where can you show me any example of any primitive society where it was every man for himself? They were not primitive because they acted in common and used what they caught or captured in common. They survived being primitive because they organized themselves toward a common goal: Survival. They had individuals, but they could not afford individuality as a life style. They could not afford to divide themselves between haves, and have nots in the sight of their enemies. Do you wonder why civilizations come and go? Each has a fatal weakness which the Spartans with their useless iron money tried to avoid. It is the accumulation of wealth in few hands which make the rich the enemy of the poor, and rents society from end to end. When people dividee over wealth they lose sight of the true wealth of society, which is hope, which is the land, which is peace, which is united strength. People who chose wealth above nation destroy their nations by their choice. What is better? To have the whole of America, or to be thrown out on our faces by some foreign owner? Divide and rule said Caesar. The rich do the dividing so others can rule us.

I don't know what you mean by "our effect" - I suppose you're talking about Western Europe and the USA with their capitalism. Fact is that capitalism and the free market has created the wealthiest society in the world today (Western Europe and the USA) - is it so weird that other societies attempt to imitate it? (And I know that it's been at the expense of other societies, and I don't endorse colonialism and new colonialism!) And Russia, I believe is a special case. The theory of the individual - as you call it - was forcefully kept out of the minds of the entire Eastern Europe and Russia for 70 years under a communist dictatorship. This was supposed to be a society with economic equality - which you seem to value so highly - and it didn't really work out that well.

We always were a wealthy country since the moment we stole it from the natives. But we seem wealthy because the wealth of the whole people has been concentrated in few hands. This is a common wealth and not a fire sale. What do you call it when resources are handed over to the rich to plunder without even paying a royalty? And if they are not getting rich fast enough the government will cut their taxes so they can have even more for less. It is retarded. We are retarded. We think we are individuals. We are slaves. But here is the bright point. We can take it back. It is our country. If this is a democracy we can make the laws, reform the government, and say what right is right. In fact we must, because the rich, having stolen our country for nothing want to sell it cheap to our enemies so they can live as kings. We do not need kings, but fellow citizens.

[Michael Addison]

Didymos Thomas, you posted the following:
Re: Democracy
it (democracy) is about economic defense. Admittedly or not, people are generally more concerned with their pocket book than their liberties. If they have money, they care little for freedom.
Look at Russia. The Russian people have, at the ballot box, given up liberty within their democracy, most even embrace the growing authoritarian nature of their government. As the nature becomes wealthier, the people do not care. Shopping malls and new cars are wonderful distractions.


2 things. 1st, you're going against Bertrand Russell when you say that wealthy people tend to care less about their own freedoms. If you've heard of Maslov's hierarchy of needs, then you know that "freedom" is much "higher" and less urgent a concern than securing food. But putting aside the theories of old psychologists, don't you know any rich people? They are always the first to complain about the dangers of "mob rule" and "the taxman". They are very much concerned with their "right" to own property, which is one kind of freedom, albeit a kind that comes at the expense of others' claims on said property. There might be some truth to the idea that wealthy people are less concerned with, say, symbolic freedoms like the freedom to vote. Probably because as the value of freedoms go, the value of the right to vote is entirely symbolic for any one person. But wait... rich people tend to vote way more often than poor people. Thus even when it comes to meaningless gestures of concern toward freedoms, rich people make the gesture with higher frequency. Can you think of any freedoms denied to the rich that they are complacent about? Can you think of any freedom denied to a rich American which any other person on the PLANET is free to enjoy? I suppose rich Americans can't torture... . I suppose rich Americans can't commit genocide... . I suppose rich Americans can't fly . There are what, 6 billion people? Statistically one of them can probably fly, and statistically that one won't be a rich American. (Really they arn't supposed to be able to do alot of stuff, but if they really want to they can just book a spaceflight to some other country where its legal).

If you have in mind something like the Patriot Act, I wouldn't regard that as a very good example. If you want to try to make a case for it, good luck, but keep in mind that the same law does not necessarily mean the same thing across wealth divides in the US legal system.

I can imagine changing one word from your earlier post which would make it much more palatable. If you had said that rich people are more concerned with their OWN pocketbook than with OTHER peoples liberties, then i can see how that might be true.

Regarding your comments on the Russian people, I very much doubt their elections were on the 'up and up'. I believe Putin assassinates journalists who offend his delicate sensibilities. I don't know to what extent the Russian people are willing to sacrifice freedom for bread, but I expect that those Russians who have plenty of bread and are on the outside of the politiburo are very much pissed about what's been going on. Kasparov is certainly a good example.

I suppose I find the content of your post against both common sense and experience.

[Didymos Thomas]

2 things. 1st, you're going against Bertrand Russell when you say that wealthy people tend to care less about their own freedoms.

Not whether or not they care, or say they care, or think they care, but whether or not they are willing to act in such a way to preserve their rights when threatened. The greater the distractions, be it alcohol or a nice new car, the less people pay attention to their rights.

Love Russell, but I have no trouble disagreeing with him.

If you've heard of Maslov's hierarchy of needs, then you know that "freedom" is much "higher" and less urgent a concern than securing food.

I have, but does that mean I embrace his thoughts? Come on now. In any case, I wasn't talking about food.

But putting aside the theories of old psychologists, don't you know any rich people?

Many of them, of varying degrees of wealth; from well off to enough money to buy a small country.

They are always the first to complain about the dangers of "mob rule" and "the taxman".

Always, eh?

They are very much concerned with their "right" to own property, which is one kind of freedom, albeit a kind that comes at the expense of others' claims on said property.

Again, I'm not talking about their emotional or stated concerns, I'm talking about what people are concerned with and willing to act on. Take a look around - the wealthy tend to vote for people who will ensure their pocketbook stays health, damn their rights.

There might be some truth to the idea that wealthy people are less concerned with, say, symbolic freedoms like the freedom to vote. Probably because as the value of freedoms go, the value of the right to vote is entirely symbolic for any one person.

Care to explain how the right to vote is symbolic? If the votes being cast are counted, then the votes are not symbolic.

But wait... rich people tend to vote way more often than poor people. Thus even when it comes to meaningless gestures of concern toward freedoms, rich people make the gesture with higher frequency.

Take into consideration the fact that poor people are more likely to catch a felony, which eliminates their right to vote. In any case, at best you can show that rich people are more capable of using their "rights", and that poor people are systematically oppressed. Nice work.

Can you think of any freedoms denied to the rich that they are complacent about?

Yes. Name one and you've got it. Then again, I reject the notion that we have freedoms, at least in my home country, the US. If you disagree, research Japanese internment during the second world war.

Can you think of any freedom denied to a rich American which any other person on the PLANET is free to enjoy?

The right to use intoxicating substances. There are nations in which marijuana use is acceptable, but in the US it's use is criminalized. And that's one on the books, too.

But I could mention any other right and be correct. The US government can detain without charge any citizen for an indefinite amount of time and deny them the right to legal counsel in the process. Once again, you have no rights.

I suppose rich Americans can't torture... . I suppose rich Americans can't commit genocide... . I suppose rich Americans can't fly . There are what, 6 billion people? Statistically one of them can probably fly, and statistically that one won't be a rich American. (Really they arn't supposed to be able to do alot of stuff, but if they really want to they can just book a spaceflight to some other country where its legal).

Statistically speaking, no human being can fly without the aid of some mechanical devise.

If you have in mind something like the Patriot Act, I wouldn't regard that as a very good example. If you want to try to make a case for it, good luck, but keep in mind that the same law does not necessarily mean the same thing across wealth divides in the US legal system.

True, but then again, if your rights are only guarded by wealth, and the government can take that wealth from you, or you can lose that wealth on your own, then you cannot accurately claim to have any rights in the first place. Instead, what you have is power, ie, wealth. But power is not equivalent to rights. I hope your argument doesn't rest on this sort of equivocation.

I suppose I find the content of your post against both common sense and experience

Oh, for shame! Whatever shall I do, having the content of my post belittled by some random person on the internet.

Totally unnecessary, buddy. If you want to have a conversation, even a debate, I'm game, but this sort of conclusion is pointless.