A Political Philosophy Question

[Norsemaiden]

Kmik, you have a lot of faith in liberal democracy and think it is an honest attempt to allow freedom to the population. Perhaps you may be surprised about some of the information here:
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/philosopher/224405-democracy-lie.html?highlight=Algeria+election

Also, the democratic system is rigged. In Communist Russia people were allowed to vote for one Communist party member or another, and things are no different in the US or elsewhere in which things are arranged so that we imagine we have democracy while in fact the same interests control the main political parties and manipulate the public.
But they oppose each other? Huh - no more than "good cop"/"bad cop" oppose each other while still being on the same side. [Assuming you've all heard of the "good cop/bad cop" form of interrogation.]

 

[Seditious]

Kmik, you have a lot of faith in liberal democracy and think it is an honest attempt to allow freedom to the population. Perhaps you may be surprised about some of the information here:
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/philosopher/224405-democracy-lie.html?highlight=Algeria+election

Also, the democratic system is rigged. In Communist Russia people were allowed to vote for one Communist party member or another, and things are no different in the US or elsewhere in which things are arranged so that we imagine we have democracy while in fact the same interests control the main political parties and manipulate the public.
But they oppose each other? Huh - no more than "good cop"/"bad cop" oppose each other while still being on the same side. [Assuming you've all heard of the "good cop/bad cop" form of interrogation.]

I'm not so sure it's 'rigged' everywhere. Our MMP system (which is more like the American senate I guess---republicans needing to face up to democrats about the shit they wanna pull rather than having total power) means the different parties do have the chance to implement their unique programs, but of course there are two main parties who thrive, and only one or two others who get heard out and some of what they want put forward because their support is needed for that two party struggle for dominance. But certainly it is a system under which very little ever changes, obviously the 'green' or 'christian' party in the US are never going to have their leader as president, but it's not to say they couldn't if only enough people liked them, that's all it comes down to.
so again, I'll offer my link about Nozick's Tale of the Slave (I know you others have seen it, dunno if kmik has, and this adds to what I think the rest of us are saying---one vote out of one-million (or one-hundred million for Americans) is a very slight impact on your freedom)

http://media.putfile.com/Democracy-and-Slavery

 

[kmik]

Well now you're just playing move the goalposts (you said how it is manipulation, not 'is it manipulation for the personal profit of a tyranny, and if so how?')
but I'll bite...
The great threat of democracy everyone (Tocqueville, Mill, Nozick, etc.) warns about: "the tyranny of the majority"---that oppression, that destruction of liberty supported by the majority in a democratic state.

You're wrong to say "everyone's own good" is why they exist---simply ask the rapist if he thinks it's for his own good that he'll get in trouble if he rapes, ask the burglar if its for his own good he can't steal. They exist for the good of the ruling majority. It's all good and well if the majority don't become a tyranny (if they don't overstep liberty itself), but in our society they undeniably have...

Of course. Democracy does not mean tyranny of the majority. The majority makes the decision, but they can't violate the basic laws of democracy or deny the minority's right to exist.

Ideally, in a democratic society, as opposed to despotic, laws are agreed upon all people because that's what best for the whole (the "social contract" - everyone's freedom is maximized to the point he doesn't hurt others) The rapist hurts his victim's freedom, therefore he's not allowed to rape. However he's allowed to masturbate if he feels like it because nobody gets hurt. Now, of course not everyone can agree on the rules, that simply can't happen in reality, so, yes, we just have to limit some people's freedom to hurt others... that's what I said before and I don't see how the rapist idea contradicts that...

the strongest refutation of my argument would be to go and sell some drugs to the police. Mill made sure to note that drug trade (Opium was his pick) is as legitimate a form of consensual free business as anything else, and under liberty has no right to be opposed any more than alcohol or sextoys or anything else a prudish majority might like to deny the people who do not have the political power.

the drugs issue is a complicated one because they make for a "victim less crime". Personally I believe in legalization of drugs, because laws against them truly contradict democratic thought, but I think they're opposed because they could potentially limit your freedom in the future, if you get sick or die using them, just like you can't sell yourself to slavery.

huh? 'mhmm' = nodding in agreement. dunno what you're saying here.

I'm sorry, I thought you followed the other guy's line of thought which made me read your posts in a different light than what was intended, probably all the way through... sorry

 

[kmik]

Kmik, you have a lot of faith in liberal democracy and think it is an honest attempt to allow freedom to the population. Perhaps you may be surprised about some of the information here:
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/philosopher/224405-democracy-lie.html?highlight=Algeria+election

Also, the democratic system is rigged. In Communist Russia people were allowed to vote for one Communist party member or another, and things are no different in the US or elsewhere in which things are arranged so that we imagine we have democracy while in fact the same interests control the main political parties and manipulate the public.
But they oppose each other? Huh - no more than "good cop"/"bad cop" oppose each other while still being on the same side. [Assuming you've all heard of the "good cop/bad cop" form of interrogation.]

You'll have to elaborate about that. Maybe the US sucks, but that doesn't contradict the basic ideas of democracy, and they are that if the government sucks, then you replace it with something else, and the state can't take unfair advantage of its citizens: the state exists for the people and not the other way around. I think that these are very good ideas which cannot be achieved in any other way.

The link you gave is just an example of a poor attempt at establishing a democratic government. I must admit that I am not familiar with the case of Algeria, but if anything, it only illustrates my point: if the military opposes decisions made by the people (the government opposes majority rule, which is a key idea of democracy), and new political parties are banned (a violation of the freedom of expression), then it's not a democracy. What's more, the fact that one democracy failed does not say anything, and it most certainly doesn't mean its core ideas are flawed.

 

[Έρεβος]

You'll have to elaborate about that. Maybe the US sucks, but that doesn't contradict the basic ideas of democracy, and they are that if the government sucks, then you replace it with something else, and the state can't take unfair advantage of its citizens: the state exists for the people and not the other way around. I think that these are very good ideas which cannot be achieved in any other way.

The very concept of "state" is purely corrupt.

 

[kmik]

In many ways, you're right. In my view, the state is a necessary evil. Its power should be limited as much as possible because it's only a tool used by the people. However, society simply cannot function without a state, that's just a basic reality of life...

EDIT: however, you still didn't explain to me how exactly human rights are just tools used to manipulate us by some sort of tyranny...

 

[Seditious]

EDIT: however, you still didn't explain to me how exactly human rights are just tools used to manipulate us by some sort of tyranny...

covered that in the 'tyranny of the majority' bit (why would we give support to (and thus increase the power of) something which did no benefit for us? we wouldn't, so these restrictions on others (aka 'rights of ours') which please us are something of a negotiation to have our non-opposition to their oppression of the rest (specifically they whose actions fall under the restrictions on citizens). Even if we had restrictions lifted to the point that we actually enjoyed liberty, still we would be a contribution to a practice of oppression, to a tyranny---indeed the 'state' may be necessary for us to get what we want, but we have to acknowledge that in getting what we want we are choosing to manipulate some into not interrupting us from hurting the others. Indeed liberty may be a better oppression than men banding together to oppress women as a necessary evil for men's benefit, but it's no less the same practice just because one is vastly more agreeable.)

 

[kmik]

covered that in the 'tyranny of the majority' bit

Like I said, democracy is not just 'rule of the majority'. If the majority decides to kill all people with green eyes, it is not a democratic decision and it will be canceled by the judicial system

 

[Seditious]

Like I said, democracy is not just 'rule of the majority'. If the majority decides to kill all people with green eyes, it is not a democratic decision and it will be canceled by the judicial system

well there's a level of faith I've never seen before.

if the popular majority in America were Islamic Fundamentalists, they'd elect governers who supposed Islamic Fundamentalism, senators who support Islamic Fundamentalism, and a presidential candidate who is a Islamic Fundamentalist. The laws set in place by the Islamic Fundamentalist would be agreed on by the Islamic Fundamentalists granted power in the judicial system by the other Islamic Fundamentalists who, consisting the majority, are found in all the necessary ranks to approve of candidates.

that's the fun thing about america being so fuckin full of Christians, you find them in more places than roaches!

 

[kmik]

well there's a level of faith I've never seen before.

if the popular majority in America were Islamic Fundamentalists, they'd elect governers who supposed Islamic Fundamentalism, senators who support Islamic Fundamentalism, and a presidential candidate who is a Islamic Fundamentalist. The laws set in place by the Islamic Fundamentalist would be agreed on by the Islamic Fundamentalists granted power in the judicial system by the other Islamic Fundamentalists who, consisting the majority, are found in all the necessary ranks to approve of candidates.

that's the fun thing about america being so fuckin full of Christians, you find them in more places than roaches!

No, in a proper democracy, there is a separation of powers. It's different from country to country, but the people can never vote for the judicial system. If the parliament was to try to pass an islamic fundamentalist law then the judicial system would simply not allow it since it's anti democratic and negates the constitution (and judges are professionals, their religious or political view should ideally not influence their decisions).

I'm sorry but I really don't get your previous post (and also couldn't help but noticing you didn't reply MY previous one in the other page). A tyranny manipulates people for its own good. A democratic state manipulates people for the common good. There are no restrictions on liberty other than harming others. That's not absolute liberty, since you can't rape and murder, but that's as good as it gets if you want a functional society and everyone to enjoy their rights. I don't understand what part of that you don't agree with.

 

[Seditious]

the people can never vote for the judicial system..

'the people' as in voters, no. but they're not self-appointed, so people obviously are in control of them being there, and if your country is full of people who like chocolate, people who like chocolate will be likely among those who do the deciding, and people who like chocolate among they who are candidates, for any of the three separate systems---and you end up with the people who like chocolate able to pass laws agreeable to any people who like chocolate, since people who don't like chocolate don't have the numbers to stop them from doing it. If that were not true, never in the first place would any drugs have been outlawed---it is too obvious that people who want to stop something which liberty allows can get away with making it illegal. If you have faith the judicial system will stop the tyranny of the majority, you really need to open your eyes and see that it already hasn't! and why? because they fuckin agree with it, they're part of the tyranny---co-tyrants, because they don't mind drugs, or sodomy, or prostitution, or whatever else you can think of having in liberty, being illegal, it is to their benefit that others are not allowed to have liberty, so they support it, they in positions of power just as much as they who merely vote once every 4 years and have no say over the supreme court or any such thing.

If the parliament was to try to pass an islamic fundamentalist law then the judicial system would simply not allow it since it's anti democratic and negates the constitution (and judges are professionals, their religious or political view should ideally not influence their decisions).

the constitution is unique to america, a democracy in a country of fundamentalists could just as easily have fundamentalists in power, fundamentalists selected for the judicial system, fundamentalists elected by fundamentalist voters... and the law which the fundamentalist voters want put in place by their fundamentalist leader. yay democracy.

A tyranny manipulates people for its own good. A democratic state manipulates people for the common good. .

I'll say it again, where we do not have liberty but we have democracy the tyranny (...which manipulates people for its own good...) is "the majority of the people"---the people (minus those who aren't in that majoritY) are the tyranny, there is no single "tyrant"

 

[kmik]

The appointing of judges is very different from country to country. In any case, the political outlooks of an ideal judge shouldn't influence his decisions, his job is merely to interpret the law and nullify laws which negate existing laws.

the constitution is not unique to america but all democratic countries still have a collection of documents which deal with the separation of power and human rights in the state (however these are not above law like the American constitution), in addition to the universal declaration of human rights. However I can assure you that if the majority was to try and pass a law that allows murder of minorities then the judicial system will nullify it.

The separation of powers does not mean there is no possibility of a tyranny, however it limits the ruler's power by not giving any person or a body absolute power over the state, and the different systems are often in conflict with one another.

Look, I dont think democracy is some kind of an ideal political system. In fact it fucking sucks, like Churchill acknowledged. However there is no better alternative. Is there a tyranny of the majority? Well, in the broadest sense, of course there is (although the minority's right to exist as a unique group is always acknowledged in a democracy), but it's still preferable to the tyranny of the minority. If we don't make decisions nobody gets harmed, but decisions have to be made. And when a decision is made not everyone can agree with it, somebody is harmed. There has to be a "tyranny" - democracy is ideal because it lets the biggest number of people be that "tyranny" and limits its power as much as possible.

Regarding prostitution and drugs, like I said these are rather complicated issues and I don't think they're even of that much importance in comparison to the freedoms we ARE given. I support legalization of drugs, but they're illegal because they could be potentially dangerous and 'kill you', and if you're dead you can't enjoy your freedom, and according to Locke's liberal theory you are not allowed to limit anyone's freedom (that includes you, not just others), and drugs could potentially limit it. Prostitution hurts the woman's honor so some countries also make it illegal.

Now I don't see how anyone in the government benefits from illegal prostitution, if anything it only gives the police a harder time and makes for bad statistics. It's illegal because the senators think it's not right, and they were elected by the people.


Frankly, i think we're just going in circles here and not saying anything new. both of us are just repeating the same things even though I think we actually agree with each other, in some sense.