democracy is the greatest threat to individual liberty

[Sebastia-Zachistan]

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-Winston Churchill

Democracy is terrible. It's horrible. It's about as bad as it can get. But it's still the best we've got.

[Genivaria]

Yeaaah no. I'd say Tyranny is a FAR greater threat to individual liberty.
When everyone just follows what one person says liberties tend to get stepped on, as opposed to democracy where people tend to be more careful when voting l because they're also the ones effected by the decisions made.
A Tyrant becomes detached from the consequences of his actions/

[Gigaverse]

Democracy is terrible. It's horrible. It's about as bad as it can get. But it's still the best we've got.

^ Zhis.

[Distruzio]

Yet the alloy is perfectly workable by itself - consider monarchies of the past and, in America's case, the legislative Confederation that preceded the Union.

They were not "anarchists". They would not have functioned as "anarchists".

No one mentioned anarchism.

[Death Metal]

Yet the alloy is perfectly workable by itself - consider monarchies of the past and, in America's case, the legislative Confederation that preceded the Union.

Pre-Constitution America... worked?

[Distruzio]

Yeaaah no. I'd say Tyranny is a FAR greater threat to individual liberty.
When everyone just follows what one person says liberties tend to get stepped on, as opposed to democracy where people tend to be more careful when voting l because they're also the ones effected by the decisions made.
A Tyrant becomes detached from the consequences of his actions/

Tyranny is not a form of gov't, Gen.

[Genivaria]

Yeaaah no. I'd say Tyranny is a FAR greater threat to individual liberty.
When everyone just follows what one person says liberties tend to get stepped on, as opposed to democracy where people tend to be more careful when voting l because they're also the ones effected by the decisions made.
A Tyrant becomes detached from the consequences of his actions/

Tyranny is not a form of gov't, Gen.

Monarchy/Theocracy/Dictatorship. Take your pick.
And I assumed that we were talking about governmental 'philosophies' not actual government types.

[NMaa949]

No one mentioned anarchism.

Then remove the anarchist paraphernalia from your flag

[Distruzio]

Tyranny is not a form of gov't, Gen.

Monarchy/Theocracy/Dictatorship. Take your pick.

The Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Each authoritarian democracies and each thoroughly tyrannical.

[Sebastia-Zachistan]

Monarchy/Theocracy/Dictatorship. Take your pick.

The Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Each authoritarian democracies and each thoroughly tyrannical.

What about Stalin was democratic?

And people like to throw around Hitler and Mussolini as being "democratic", even though neither ever were. Hitler was appointed Chancellor, and the Nazis only ever had 35% of the vote (through artificial means; had the presidential junta not had elections every three months, they would've stayed around 2%), and Mussolini basically threatened to provoke civil war if he wasn't made PM.

[Distruzio]

No one mentioned anarchism.

Then remove the anarchist paraphernalia from your flag

No.

[Distruzio]

The Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Each authoritarian democracies and each thoroughly tyrannical.

What about Stalin was democratic?

What about him was liberal?

[Death Metal]

The practicality of democracy only begins, to my mind, when we inject the aristocratic (parliamentary) or monarchic (presidential) alloy. Yet the alloy is perfectly workable by itself -

Nothing says liberty like suggesting we remove people's freedom to choose who has authority.

[Kilobugya]

Monarchy/Theocracy/Dictatorship. Take your pick.

Theocracy would be the worst in my opinion. Monarchy and dictatorship may not interfere too much in your own private life, as long as you don't try to remove the powerful from power. But theocracy ? It means they will control you within one inch, forcing you to do whatever they thing their god wants. Really awful.

[NMaa949]

The Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Each authoritarian democracies and each thoroughly tyrannical.

sigging

[New Rogernomics]

Tyranny is not a form of gov't, Gen.

Monarchy/Theocracy/Dictatorship. Take your pick.

Well under meritocracy you are kept down/enslaved by a social or intellectual hierarchy; you cannot rise up the ladder save through manipulation or coercion, equality (political or otherwise) and the right to be heard/have a say (without sufficient qualification*) deemed a perversion of the 'natural order'.

*Which is defined by the powers that be in that society, keeping in mind that the flaws of the hierarchy cannot be questioned without coercion, manipulation or violence.

[Kilobugya]

The Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Each authoritarian democracies and each thoroughly tyrannical.

Democracies ? They are all example of totally undemocratic systems. They came to power by force (or by plotting, for Hitler), never get elected, and never had popular support. They are example of how bad things can go when you DON'T have democracy.

[Sebastia-Zachistan]

What about Stalin was democratic?

What about him was liberal?

Nothing. But how on earth does that make him democratic?

Using Stalin as an example of why democracy is bad is like using Ronald Reagan as an example of why communism works.

[Norstal]

The Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Each authoritarian democracies and each thoroughly tyrannical.

What about Stalin was democratic?

And people like to throw around Hitler and Mussolini as being "democratic", even though neither ever were. Hitler was appointed Chancellor, and the Nazis only ever had 35% of the vote (through artificial means; had the presidential junta not had elections every three months, they would've stayed around 2%), and Mussolini basically threatened to provoke civil war if he wasn't made PM.

It was a sham democracy. He's correct in calling it an authoritarian democracy.

What he can't do however, is group it with other forms of democracies.

[Distruzio]

No one said anything about absolute monarchy. The form of monarchy I imagine when I offer my opinions is of enlightened absolutism. Note that I ONLY speak of gov't forms - not of economic orders (such as manorialism) nor of social orders (such as feudalism).

Also, classical liberals are a groups of individuals not limited to 18th and 19th century France and America.

I said "absolute monarchy" because constitutional monarchy is a form of parliamentary democracy, at least as commonly practiced in the West. Enlightened absolutism is is still absolutism, it's right there in the name.

Yes, I realize. I neglected to complete the thought and jumped to the next one. Sorry.

I choose enlightened absolutism not b/c I consider it the best (or the worst - remember the explanation of my ideal in the link on my name in the OP) but the most pure form of monarchism as the philosophy of it elevates the "common good" of the society over which the monarch rules.

[NMaa949]

The Soviet Union was not remotely a democracy

[Distruzio]

What about him was liberal?

Nothing. But how on earth does that make him democratic?

Using Stalin as an example of why democracy is bad is like using Ronald Reagan as an example of why communism works.

Ah.. you edited that to change the sentence just as I quoted it. You originally wrote:

What about Stalin was authoritarian?

Hence my response.

[Kilobugya]

Well under meritocracy you are kept down/enslaved by a social or intellectual hierarchy; you cannot rise up the ladder save through manipulation or coercion, equality (political or otherwise) and the right to be heard/have a say (without sufficient qualification*) deemed a perversion of the 'natural order'.

*Which is defined by the powers that be in that society, keeping in mind that the flaws of the hierarchy cannot be questioned without coercion, manipulation or violence.

Meritocracy still suffer the three fatal flaws of all non-democratic systems :

1. The rules saying who has more power than who are, at the end, always arbitrary.

2. By the mere fact that some people (the "smarter", "more competent") have power over the others give them different interests and motivation, so the ones in command no longer act to favour the interest of society, but to favour the interest of their class within the society.

3. By keeping many away from the decision process, you sap the legitimacy of the society, moving from "the individual and the community are in a symbiotic relation in which all gain from the others being better off" to "the community exploits and oppress the individual, so we need to betray it".

[Sebastia-Zachistan]

Nothing. But how on earth does that make him democratic?

Using Stalin as an example of why democracy is bad is like using Ronald Reagan as an example of why communism works.

Ah.. you edited that to change the sentence just as I quoted it. You originally wrote:

What about Stalin was authoritarian?

Hence my response.

Ah, yes, sorry about that. I saw that the moment I clicked submit and facepalmed at how I could confuse the two so stupidly.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

You know what the biggest threat to individual liberty is?

Other people.

Shame we have to live with them.