Views on Democracy?

[Kragholm Free States]

Democracy is the enemy of liberty.

And the alternative?

Liberty.

[Accelerationist Poland-Lithuania]

Democracy is the enemy of liberty.

And the alternative?

Charles Edward Stewart

[The Cosmic Mainframe]

Democracy is the enemy of liberty.

Why wouldn't the people vote for liberty? You say you are a monarchist - why would a monarch vote for liberty? Wouldn't that go against their own interests?

[Last Breath]

Democracy definitely has its problems, with leaders often gaining control through mass appeal rather than actual competence, but the alternative is far worse. In democracy leaders are beholden to their constituents, which means they are far less likely to enact measures that overwhelmingly harm the majority. Without this kind of check we would just have an arbitrarily chosen ruling class that could alter the law on a whim.

[Ifreann]

Public opinion is easily malleable and people are retarded. People with no idea about anything elect managerial baby boomers with no technical knowledge to regulate paintball guns, file encryption and the ponzi scheme economy. Democracy is the preferred system of the current elite in the West because it gives the power to those who control the media, ie those who control the flow of information. They don't even need a jackboot. Even the greatest minds of Athens hated democracy.

And if Socrates had an opinion, it must be the best opinion, because he's very famous.

[Last Breath]

Public opinion is easily malleable and people are retarded. People with no idea about anything elect managerial baby boomers with no technical knowledge to regulate paintball guns, file encryption and the ponzi scheme economy. Democracy is the preferred system of the current elite in the West because it gives the power to those who control the media, ie those who control the flow of information. They don't even need a jackboot. Even the greatest minds of Athens hated democracy.

And if Socrates had an opinion, it must be the best opinion, because he's very famous.

A lot of the reasoning in many of Socrates's arguments is pretty flawed to be honest.

[-Astoria]

And the alternative?

Liberty.

Through what system?

[Solarampa]

It works but over the time it got more corrupted and the politicians want the votes, but they do care about the people. Some do but usally the one who makies the bigger promises wins.

[Reverend Norv]

I am a democrat because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they're not true. Whenever their weakness is exposed, the people who prefer tyranny make capital out of the exposure. I find that they're not true without looking further than myself. I don't deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people — all the people who believe advertisements, and think in catchwords and spread rumors. The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

[Peatiktist]

I mean, democracy is a great idea in theory. It's really hard to build a stable Nation without some form of it.

The problem comes when you start throwing Political Parties into the mix. Then you start getting wonderful ideas and laws subverted because one party won't let the other have their way.
And don't even get me started on politicians that only care about their position.

[Lakorydosia]

Democracy is just a tool, and its legitimacy depends on the context. Liberal democracy is essentially a tool of the very wealthy, which they inevitably make a use of. Tolerance of different political perspectives? No, the effectiveness of social and economic systems is irrelevant to someones subjective views.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Democracy definitely has its problems, with leaders often gaining control through mass appeal rather than actual competence, but the alternative is far worse. In democracy leaders are beholden to their constituents, which means they are far less likely to enact measures that overwhelmingly harm the majority. Without this kind of check we would just have an arbitrarily chosen ruling class that could alter the law on a whim.

In democracies, sociopaths run for office by appealing to the people and waiting turns for the next opportunity. In dictatorships, the only way forward is to kill each other.

[South Acren]

My views are quite simple and follow Churchills famous quote:
"democracy is the worst form of government, besides all those others that have been tried from time to time."

[Region of Dwipantara]

Democracy is just a tool, and its legitimacy depends on the context. Liberal democracy is essentially a tool of the very wealthy, which they inevitably make a use of. Tolerance of different political perspectives? No, the effectiveness of social and economic systems is irrelevant to someones subjective views.

Meanwhile, if enough people got tired of the present establishment, they can always vote them out of office. In dictatorial entities, either you take the gun or they take theirs.

[Vistulange]

Democracy, in its crudest form formulated by Socrates (rather, the Socrates related to us by Platon, we don't really know what the man himself thought), is blatant tyranny of the majority. However, today, when we say "democracy", very few of us actually mean this form of democracy.

Democracy as we know it today encapsulates a large number of things, the most important of which are the rule of law and human rights, for starters. There is a large amount of literature of "democracy with adjectives", referring to the variety of "X democracy", such as "electoral democracy", "liberal democracy", "illiberal democracy"; as well as certain forms of democracy that are somewhere between a fully closed system and a complete liberal democracy, such as "competitive authoritarianism" and "hegemonic democracy".

In practice, what most of us mean by democracy is "liberal democracy", where the "liberal" is not pertaining to the economic or social freedoms granted (or for the Americans, the oh-so-evil "left"), but rather to the existence of both vertical and horizontal checks and balances. That is to say, elections and civil society serve as checks on power (vertical), while the judicial branch and to some extent free media also serve as a check on executive power (horizontal). Illiberal democracy, which is practically the same thing as an electoral democracy, reduces democracy solely to elections and the ballot box, resulting in the elected government assuming the role of an executive with a mandate to do as it pleases. Erdoğan is one example, but recently, Orban is an even more egregious example. Trump is certainly veering in this direction.

A liberal democracy is the best we have got, at the moment. Frankly, I'm not going to be edgy and go "it's shitty, but it's the best we got", no, it's a pretty damn good system, provided you can alleviate social and economic issues. What makes liberal democracies inherently better than the alternatives that are practically in existence is its average success in eliminating corruption and inept governance. Corruption itself is not inherently anti-democratic, mind you, but it makes transitioning to a non-democratic system all the more easier. As a would-be autocrat is able to gather resources in the system - mostly money, but also other, less tangible resources such as screen time on state televisions - around his person or around his political organisation, he is also capable of distributing these resources in a partisan manner. Media that does not toe the government line is punished: the AKP government's usage of the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF) to nationalise dissenting media conglomerates in the mid-to-late 2000's is a prime example, which were then sold to companies and individuals close to the government at lower prices. Selective tax audits, such as the ones conducted against the Doğan Group, are another such means of concentrating power and resources around the incumbent executive.

Over time, the weakening of horizontal checks - populist leaders utilise this very often - through delegitimisation, by way of exploiting real or fabricated differences between the "real people" and the "elites" strikes liberal democracy, hard. Once the courts are packed and opposing viewpoints are either marginalised, delegitimised, or even outright criminalised, there is nothing that prevents executive aggrandisement. The further problem is that nowadays, the type of authoritarianism we see tends to be of the personalistic sort, be it in Turkey, Hungary or China. Personalistic regimes have the added disadvantage of revolving solely around the decisions and desires of a single person, who may - and probably doesn't - know about many issues. As all sorts of horizontal checks have been eliminated, and folks around the personalistic leader have been cowed into submission and deference, there is, practically speaking, nothing that prevents terrible policy choices from being realised. An example, once more, comes from Turkey: Erdoğan insists upon lowering interest rates, directly involving himself in the Central Bank's affairs - itself prohibited by Turkish law, which grants independence to the Central Bank from the executive branch - even as practically all of the country's economists maintain that it is a bad policy option. This has several adverse effects on the average Turk, such as the loss of investor faith in the reliability and independence of the Central Bank itself, and so on; but it boils down to the executive overreaching its authority without anybody - practically speaking - to control it.

So yeah, liberal democracy is damn good.

[Page]

I support direct democracy in a stateless society in which people practice mutual aid.

[Antityranicals]

Democracy is the enemy of liberty.

Why wouldn't the people vote for liberty? You say you are a monarchist - why would a monarch vote for liberty? Wouldn't that go against their own interests?

People are not given a ballot with two choices, liberty or tyranny. People are given a list of names. These names are more or less known to them based upon two things: advertising and campaign promises. Those who spend tons on advertising and offer the world have a distinct advantage. Since a century of public education has taught people that the government is their friend, people have no problem with asking it to do things for them. And those two things combined are an unmitigated disaster. Also, what kind of people spend tons on advertising and promise the world? Scam artists. So ultimately, the choice between democracy and monarchy is whether we want our country to be run by a political class composed mostly of scam artists, or by one person who is not really any better or worse than most people. And while both are bad options, I think monarchy is preferrable, because at least then many people will have the good sense to oppose the government, at least personally.

[Antityranicals]

I support direct democracy in a stateless society in which people practice mutual aid.

How does one reconcile democracy and a stateless society?

[Ifreann]

Why wouldn't the people vote for liberty? You say you are a monarchist - why would a monarch vote for liberty? Wouldn't that go against their own interests?

People are not given a ballot with two choices, liberty or tyranny. People are given a list of names. These names are more or less known to them based upon two things: advertising and campaign promises. Those who spend tons on advertising and offer the world have a distinct advantage. Since a century of public education has taught people that the government is their friend, people have no problem with asking it to do things for them. And those two things combined are an unmitigated disaster. Also, what kind of people spend tons on advertising and promise the world? Scam artists. So ultimately, the choice between democracy and monarchy is whether we want our country to be run by a political class composed mostly of scam artists, or by one person who is not really any better or worse than most people. And while both are bad options, I think monarchy is preferrable, because at least then many people will have the good sense to oppose the government, at least personally.

Have you considered that if people live under a government that they recognise is bad, they will decide to abolish that government?

[Lakorydosia]

Democracy is just a tool, and its legitimacy depends on the context. Liberal democracy is essentially a tool of the very wealthy, which they inevitably make a use of. Tolerance of different political perspectives? No, the effectiveness of social and economic systems is irrelevant to someones subjective views.

Meanwhile, if enough people got tired of the present establishment, they can always vote them out of office. In dictatorial entities, either you take the gun or they take theirs.

Voting politicians out of office is problematic in practice, people in general are conservative in nature. Elected representatives should be bound by imperative mandate.

[Antityranicals]

People are not given a ballot with two choices, liberty or tyranny. People are given a list of names. These names are more or less known to them based upon two things: advertising and campaign promises. Those who spend tons on advertising and offer the world have a distinct advantage. Since a century of public education has taught people that the government is their friend, people have no problem with asking it to do things for them. And those two things combined are an unmitigated disaster. Also, what kind of people spend tons on advertising and promise the world? Scam artists. So ultimately, the choice between democracy and monarchy is whether we want our country to be run by a political class composed mostly of scam artists, or by one person who is not really any better or worse than most people. And while both are bad options, I think monarchy is preferrable, because at least then many people will have the good sense to oppose the government, at least personally.

Have you considered that if people live under a government that they recognise is bad, they will decide to abolish that government?

Do you think that's exactly practical? Under that argument, you could justify antebellum southern slavery by saying that if the slaves found it so bad, they could overthrow their masters. You don't just need a bad system for a revolution, but a critical mass of people willing to resort to revolution as well. After all, it's not like there's an "abolish the government" option on the ballot... And even then, a system doesn't have to be recognized as bad in order to be bad. Ultimately, the very best option is to have all the services of government provided by the private sector, so that people can choose their providers based upon cost and effectiveness, and have government only exist as a last resort source of appeal in case these companies violate the rights of others, if even that.

[Kowani]

Democracy, in its crudest form formulated by Socrates (rather, the Socrates related to us by Platon, we don't really know what the man himself thought), is blatant tyranny of the majority. However, today, when we say "democracy", very few of us actually mean this form of democracy.

Democracy as we know it today encapsulates a large number of things, the most important of which are the rule of law and human rights, for starters. There is a large amount of literature of "democracy with adjectives", referring to the variety of "X democracy", such as "electoral democracy", "liberal democracy", "illiberal democracy"; as well as certain forms of democracy that are somewhere between a fully closed system and a complete liberal democracy, such as "competitive authoritarianism" and "hegemonic democracy".

In practice, what most of us mean by democracy is "liberal democracy", where the "liberal" is not pertaining to the economic or social freedoms granted (or for the Americans, the oh-so-evil "left"), but rather to the existence of both vertical and horizontal checks and balances. That is to say, elections and civil society serve as checks on power (vertical), while the judicial branch and to some extent free media also serve as a check on executive power (horizontal). Illiberal democracy, which is practically the same thing as an electoral democracy, reduces democracy solely to elections and the ballot box, resulting in the elected government assuming the role of an executive with a mandate to do as it pleases. Erdoğan is one example, but recently, Orban is an even more egregious example. Trump is certainly veering in this direction.

A liberal democracy is the best we have got, at the moment. Frankly, I'm not going to be edgy and go "it's shitty, but it's the best we got", no, it's a pretty damn good system, provided you can alleviate social and economic issues. What makes liberal democracies inherently better than the alternatives that are practically in existence is its average success in eliminating corruption and inept governance. Corruption itself is not inherently anti-democratic, mind you, but it makes transitioning to a non-democratic system all the more easier. As a would-be autocrat is able to gather resources in the system - mostly money, but also other, less tangible resources such as screen time on state televisions - around his person or around his political organisation, he is also capable of distributing these resources in a partisan manner. Media that does not toe the government line is punished: the AKP government's usage of the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF) to nationalise dissenting media conglomerates in the mid-to-late 2000's is a prime example, which were then sold to companies and individuals close to the government at lower prices. Selective tax audits, such as the ones conducted against the Doğan Group, are another such means of concentrating power and resources around the incumbent executive.

Over time, the weakening of horizontal checks - populist leaders utilise this very often - through delegitimisation, by way of exploiting real or fabricated differences between the "real people" and the "elites" strikes liberal democracy, hard. Once the courts are packed and opposing viewpoints are either marginalised, delegitimised, or even outright criminalised, there is nothing that prevents executive aggrandisement. The further problem is that nowadays, the type of authoritarianism we see tends to be of the personalistic sort, be it in Turkey, Hungary or China. Personalistic regimes have the added disadvantage of revolving solely around the decisions and desires of a single person, who may - and probably doesn't - know about many issues. As all sorts of horizontal checks have been eliminated, and folks around the personalistic leader have been cowed into submission and deference, there is, practically speaking, nothing that prevents terrible policy choices from being realised. An example, once more, comes from Turkey: Erdoğan insists upon lowering interest rates, directly involving himself in the Central Bank's affairs - itself prohibited by Turkish law, which grants independence to the Central Bank from the executive branch - even as practically all of the country's economists maintain that it is a bad policy option. This has several adverse effects on the average Turk, such as the loss of investor faith in the reliability and independence of the Central Bank itself, and so on; but it boils down to the executive overreaching its authority without anybody - practically speaking - to control it.

So yeah, liberal democracy is damn good.

This, but with more sarcasm and less eloquence.

[Region of Dwipantara]

I support direct democracy in a stateless society in which people practice mutual aid.

How does one reconcile democracy and a stateless society?

With gun.

[Antityranicals]

How does one reconcile democracy and a stateless society?

With gun.

So a mini-state?

[Ifreann]

Have you considered that if people live under a government that they recognise is bad, they will decide to abolish that government?

Do you think that's exactly practical?

That rather depends what you mean by "practical". But obviously it is impossible to have a government that cannot be overthrown.

Under that argument,

I'm not making an argument, I'm pointing out a flaw in your argument in favour of monarchy. You, as I understand your argument, want a monarchy so that people will oppose the government. But supposing that that works, why would people keep in place a government that they all oppose?

you could justify antebellum southern slavery by saying that if the slaves found it so bad, they could overthrow their masters.

Well, yeah, they could have. I'm sure it would have been very difficult, but slave revolts have happened in history.

You don't just need a bad system for a revolution, but a critical mass of people willing to resort to revolution as well.

Right, and your idea seems to be that everyone under a monarchy would oppose the government.

After all, it's not like there's an "abolish the government" option on the ballot...

I'm sure there isn't under a monarchy.

And even then, a system doesn't have to be recognized as bad in order to be bad. Ultimately, the very best option is to have all the services of government provided by the private sector, so that people can choose their providers based upon cost and effectiveness, and have government only exist as a last resort source of appeal in case these companies violate the rights of others, if even that.

Again, as I understand your argument you want a monarchy so that everyone living under it will oppose the government.