@Wayfarer Do you have any thoughts about this?

I'm with Churchill - it's the 'least worst option'. There are many things wrong with it, it often throws up pretty dreadful governments, and is easily corrupted. But what are the options? At least in a democracy one can express opposition, form a political party and try and win support. We can hold people responsible and vote them out (hence the vital role of a free press.)

Honestly, by far the best option would be government by a group of disinterested but enlightened geniuses to whom we could willingly cede complete authority in the sound knowledge they know best and would always act for the common good. Plato's philosopher-kings. The problem is, it's an impossible dream, so we're just going to have to try and get along with democracy.

I think you're saying that it's a tool for creating healthy societies? Or are you saying its the best option for individuals?

Is democracy a tool or a goal unto itself? If it is some sort of goal we reach toward, why should we be reaching for it? — frank

In "Politics and the English language", George Orwell points out that the term "democracy" resists being given a definition. Therefore, it is a member of the class of "meaningless words".

The only purpose of meaningless words is to praise or to black mouth.

"Democracy" is supposedly "good" while "terrorism" is supposedly evil. These terms do not mean anything else but good and evil in the opinion of the person using these words, in reference to an unspecified and undocumented system of fake morality.

It is a conjectural belief that democracy would be a viable political system. I strongly suspect that it isn't.

As far as I am concerned, it leads to the most intrusive kind of government known to mankind, only surpassed by soviet communism in terms of loss of freedom and self-destructiveness.

I think you're saying that it's a tool for creating healthy societies? Or are you saying its the best option for individuals? — frank

Counter question: compared to what?

I'm with Churchill - it's the 'least worst option'. — Wayfarer

Pretty much all other options could survive on the long run. So-called democracy can clearly not, as it brings down fertility rates to zero, and eliminates the very society that it is supposed to govern. In that sense, it is not the least worst, but simply the worst option. Only Soviet communism was possibly even worse, but even that is debatable. Furthermore, we will never know, because Soviet communism has imploded already while so-called democracy is still in its very last lap.

It is a conjectural belief that democracy would be a viable political system. I strongly suspect that it isn't. — alcontali

Isn't it segregating in a sense?
In an 'every man for himself' sense - where there's quorum rather than consensus.

But maybe that's the semblance of the current capitalistic democracy, in which case what would merely democracy be?

Pretty much all other options [to democracy] could survive on the long run. — alcontali

The question is, WHAT ARE THEY? Name one, or more. And then we'll vote. Oh - hang on.....

But maybe that's the semblance of the current capitalistic democracy, in which case what would merely democracy be? — Shamshir

In a so-called democracy, the option exists to invent new laws that will make the survival of society itself, impossible. You would think that they would not do a thing like that, but they really do. It is perfectly possible to manipulate the populace into approving self-destructive laws and policies.

Therefore, rule number one:

Never ask the populace (of mere idiots) how to govern the country. Just govern it.

For example, they kicked out the so-called "democratic" government in Thailand and replaced it by a military junta. I can only approve of that. The "democratic" predecessor was busy manipulating the populace into approving principles that would simply destroy that very populace. You would think that the populace would not do a stupid thing like that? Sorry, they always do. Welcome to the real world.

In "Politics and the English language", George Orwell points out that the term "democracy" resists being given a definition. Therefore, it is a member of the class of "meaningless words". — alcontali

George should have known better. 'Heap' resists being given a definition. But what has become clear of late is that democracy cannot be identical with 'the will of the majority', for the simple reason that the will of the majority is as a matter of course often contradictory and thus cannot by any means be implemented. Accordingly, one needs an interpretive layer, such as 'representatives' to examine the will of the people and make as much sense of it as may be, and implement that. And that implies a constitution and that implies the rule of law and a judiciary, and so on. Jeez, un, life is complicated!

Accordingly, one needs an interpretive layer, such as 'representatives' to examine the will of the people and make as much sense of it as may be, and implement that. — unenlightened

No, sorry, don't even implement that!
It will become a tool for the populace (of mere idiots) to destroy themselves.
Society is not viable like that.

We have a word here that roughly translates to 'freedomness'.

To illustrate, freedomness to freedom is like poisonous mushrooms to edible ones.
A lookalike that preys on the inexperienced and unattentive.

Democracy being moreso bureaucratic than practical makes it freedomness, in my experience.

Addendum: For instance you have the rights to education and work - but that leaves out a lot of context.

Until recently practical skills were overlooked in favour of a degree.
And despite having an 'education', rather a degree - doesn't mean you're educated.

Most such rights are just filler.
Like the word 'populism'.

Democracy being moreso bureaucratic than practical makes it freedomness, in my experience. — Shamshir

When does a {hospital} work properly?

When we get the guarantee that the ignorant idiots of the populace won't have a say whatsoever in making {medical} decisions concerning others. Only the cognoscenti will be involved in figuring that out.

When does a {garage} work properly?

When we get the guarantee that the ignorant idiots of the populace won't have a say whatsoever in making decisions concerning {car-repairs on the cars} of others. Only the cognoscenti will be involved in figuring that out.

So, all throughout society we enforce the following principle:

When does {X} work properly?

When we get the guarantee that the ignorant idiots of the populace won't have a say whatsoever in making decisions concerning the {X} of other people. Only the cognoscenti will be involved in figuring that out.

In a so-called "democracy", an exception is made when {X} concerns {X}="how to govern the country". That is a glaring and fundamental mistake. There should be no exception whatsoever, because it is exactly that exception that will start destroying every possible other {X}.

I think you're saying that it's a tool for creating healthy societies? Or are you saying its the best option for individuals?
— frank

Counter question: compared to what? — Wayfarer

Am I right that you think of democracy as a tool rather than a goal in and of itself?

I'm with Churchill - it's the 'least worst option' — Wayfarer

My suspicions about politics have thus been confirmed!

:up:

No, sorry, don't even implement that!
It will become a tool for the populace (of mere idiots) to destroy themselves.
Society is not viable like that. — alcontali

There's nothing to say that humanity is viable in any configuration. But I am implementing nothing, but describing the sort of arrangement that is generally called 'democratic' which is viable enough in the short term to be extant in many institutions.

In a so-called democracy, the option exists to invent new laws that will make the survival of society itself, impossible. — alcontali

That option exists in every government that is run by people. Historically, plenty of societies made decisions that ended up being severely detrimental to them. The vast majority of those were not democracies.

If it is some sort of goal we reach toward, why should we be reaching for it?

If it's merely a tool (I think it is), what truly is the goal? — frank

Can your question be reformulated as: Is democracy a tool to arrive at correct/rational/just laws or are correct/rational/just laws those laws which have been passed by a democracy?

I think It's both. For general principles, democracy is a tool to establish those principles as best as posisble. The correct principles being determined by philosophy/rationality. But, when we get to the details of exactly how to implement these principles, democracy is an end in and of itself, as it is up to the people being governed to decide these details.

The correct principles being determined by philosophy/rationality. But, when we get to the details of exactly how to implement these principles, democracy is an end in and of itself, as it is up to the people being governed to decide these details. — Echarmion

Oddly, I'd say the exact opposite, so I'd be interested in your reasoning.

I don't think it's possible derive principles "correctly" as I can't think of a fixed measure by which such a judgement could be made.

I do think, though, that having established the principle one is trying to achieve, there are more or less objective facts about which strategy will or will not achieve them. The fixed measure being controlled experiments on all or part of said strategies.

Democracy is often a goal that people reach for in itself. As I've often commented, though, I really couldn't care less what the structure of the government is. What I care about is what laws a government does or doesn't have. I'm no more likely to agree with laws just because they're decided by a majority.

There's two ways to guarantee that.

1. People are evaluated and a job is selected for them - this is old enforced socialism

2. People willingly work what they're best at for the benefit of the community - i.e natural communism.

But you can't have 2 without abolishing money.

What I am thinking of when I refer to principles is things like the rule of law, fundamental human, political and social rights. Those are things that are not subject to negotiation.

On the other hand, while we may all agree that we should make automobile traffic as safe as possible, there is a point at which the costs of additional safety will outweigh the benefits. Where exactly that point is cannot be practically determined by argument alone. It's a question that should be decided by vote.

I'd simply allow people to work whatever jobs they want to work, with there being no barrier to them being able to work those jobs. Of course, they'd need to be trained, but that would be provided.

What I am thinking of when I refer to principles is things like the rule of law, fundamental human, political and social rights. Those are things that are not subject to negotiation. — Echarmion

So by what measure are they correct then, if not democratic agreement?

there is a point at which the costs of additional safety will outweigh the benefits. Where exactly that point is cannot be practically determined by argument alone. — Echarmion

I'm not seeing the difference at all. If we were to agree on the relative value of the competing harms (say loss of money vs risk to life) then it would absolutely be an empirical matter to determine which strategy yielded the most gain in one for the least loss in the other.

I personally don't agree that we can rationally work out the relative values, but that's the bit you seem sure we can, so I'm failing to see why it isn't just a matter of empirical fact which strategy is best from there on.

For example, the UK government has asked the Bank of England to set interest rates. Having determined that economic growth is an objective, the strategy for achieving it (with regard to interest rates) is just a matter of economic theory, best left to experts in the field.

That's possible right now, and not to much benefit.

Anyone can work as a musician or writer, and even if they're good they can't guarantee profit.

If you want the public to tip you, you need to please them - and sometimes, if not most times, that means doing something other than what you want.

And while individuals strain themselves, corporations are largely exempt - treating people like cattle.

So you either enforce order or remove the middle man.

That's possible right now, and not to much benefit. — Shamshir

If you wanted to work as an actor this year, an airline pilot next year, a marine biology researcher the following year, etc. that's not really possible with the way things are set up.

You can work towards those things, but you might not be able to get the opportunities, you might not be able to afford the schooling required, you might not be able to support yourself while pursuing various things, you can't just on a whim decide that you want to do something and begin to do it (at least as an apprentice).

I'd set things up so that you can do the job you want to do, on whatever hours you want to do it, with whatever time off, simply because that's what you want to do. That might not guarantee access to scarcer resources--that might require pursuit of particular work, at particular hours, etc., but you'd be able to do whatever work you want to do, changing as often as you like, etc.

As I've often commented, though, I really couldn't care less what the structure of the government is. What I care about is what laws a government does or doesn't have. I'm no more likely to agree with laws just because they're decided by a majority. — Terrapin Station

Totally agreed.

In my experience, countries that are NOT democracies perform much better in that respect. No matter what other stupid laws they usually have on the books, democracies always end up revolving around handouts, freebies, and envy politics.

The best example of a "true democracy" is Venezuela.

The populace started yelling that the price of bread was too high? No problem. Just set the price firmly below the production cost. Now they are complaining that nobody produces bread anymore and that the supermarket shelves are empty.

Of course, Venezuelans still consistently refuse to acknowledge any link between their own political demands and their own misery. It is not their fault at all! Unfortunately, it is not Chavez' fault (or now Maduro's) either because they only did what that the populace of complete idiots demanded from their government, which literally delivered the laws that these retards asked for.

Furthermore, even if the supermarket shelves became stocked again, they wouldn't be able to buy anything there with their worthless Bolivar currency. The Venezuelan government just kept printing money to pay for handouts and freebies, while it is "the rich capitalists" who were running the erstwhile bakeries who should pay for the handouts and freebies !!!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does not only sound like Chavez. She really is like him. You see the same kind of people showing up everywhere in these so-called "democracies". What a joke!

Can your question be reformulated as: Is democracy a tool to arrive at correct/rational/just laws or are correct/rational/just laws those laws which have been passed by a democracy? — Echarmion

I think you're seeing justice as the purpose of government (or at least part of the purpose?) That's a fascinating perspective and it's a little alien to me. Like Lincoln, I think injustice is just part of life. He believed that democracy is a tool to nurture a kind of awakening to human potential.

More later. As always, nice talking with you.

You can work towards those things, but you might not be able to get the opportunities, you might not be able to afford the schooling required, you might not be able to support yourself while pursuing various things, you can't just on a whim decide that you want to do something and begin to do it (at least as an apprentice). — Terrapin Station

And there it is - the problem is funding, in other words money.

On a side note: I'm self-sufficient, currently working ten different things at once - so it technically is possible to do what you said, albeit rarely.

So by what measure are they correct then, if not democratic agreement? — Isaac

Reason, for example. I see that this is not your position, but you're certainly aware that plenty of philosophers argued that there are truths about law, morality etc.

I don't think this is the thread to go into detail on that argument though.

I'm not seeing the difference at all. If we were to agree on the relative value of the competing harms (say loss of money vs risk to life) then it would absolutely be an empirical matter to determine which strategy yielded the most gain in one for the least loss in the other. — Isaac

But we'd still need a value judgement to determine how much loss of money equals how much risk to life.

I personally don't agree that we can rationally work out the relative values, but that's the bit you seem sure we can, so I'm failing to see why it isn't just a matter of empirical fact which strategy is best from there on. — Isaac

Well, I believe that human minds are similar enough to work some things out rationally. I don't believe that rationality is precise enough to offer answers to all legal value judgements, at least not given current cognitive capacities.

And there are questions which seem to have no connection to rationality at all, like which side of the road to drive on. Questions of organisation, essentially.

I think you're seeing justice as the purpose of government (or at least part of the purpose?) That's a fascinating perspective and it's a little alien to me. Like Lincoln, I think injustice is just part of life. He believed that democracy is a tool to nurture a kind of awakening to human potential. — frank

I think you could call it "Justice", yes. The purpose of the government is to create a "state of justice", which allows individuals to practice their freedom, which could also be described as awakening their potential.

But my background is in law, which might bias my thinking.

I think you could call it "Justice", yes. The purpose of the government is to create a "state of justice", which allows individuals to practice their freedom, which could also be described as awakening their potential.

But my background is in law, which might bias my thinking. — Echarmion

It's just that I know a lot of people who would laugh in my face if I told them the government is supposed to secure justice. They would say that it probably does if you're rich. But if you're really rich, you can buy favorable injustice.

How do you view this? If a democracy is supposed to have the goal of establishing justice, where does it go wrong?