Why Democracy Matters: Lessons from History

Linkey

Many people around the world, especially in Russia, call themselves opponents of democracy. Their logic is simple — they believe they live well enough now without democracy. I will demonstrate the flaws in this reasoning.

Currently, there are quite prosperous monarchical countries such as Jordan, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. However, these modern monarchies are very different from ancient monarchies characterized as Eastern despotism. In today’s world, monarchies neighboring democracies must maintain relatively good governance, or they risk being overthrown. In civilizations unfamiliar with democracy, the oppression of the lower classes by the upper classes was really severe.

When an authoritarian state, such as a monarchy, borders a democratic country, its authorities fear revolution and thus cannot exploit the population excessively. They understand that if their citizens live worse than those in neighboring democracy, a revolution may occur, leading to a shift towards democratic governance. In this way, democracies exert an “ennobling” effect on neighboring authoritarian regimes. Despite this influence, these authoritarian countries often pose a military threat to democracies.

For instance, ancient Macedonia was more civilized than ancient Persia, even though both were monarchies. This difference can be attributed to Macedonia’s proximity to Greece and the democratic traditions of the latter.

Another historical example is Germany in the first half of the 20th century. Although Germany was an authoritarian state neighboring democratic France and England, the latter countries exerted an “ennobling” influence on it. Due to the English and French revolutions, 20th-century Germany did not have serfdom or other remnants of the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, Germany still posed a military threat to England and France.

Similarly, the medieval confrontation between Muscovy and the Novgorod Republic illustrates my point. While the Novgorod Republic existed, peasants in both Novgorod and Muscovy were relatively free. However, after Moscow conquered Novgorod, the gradual enslavement of peasants began, reaching its peak under Peter the Great.

If democracy is discredited worldwide, the world risks regressing into a new Middle Ages, which is a deeply concerning prospect. This scenario becomes more likely if Russia defeats Ukraine in the current conflict.

Igitur

↪Linkey

So essentially you are saying that even if a state is not democratic, the people living in it are likely advantaged if there is a nearby democratic state, simply due to the necessity of the government to please its citizens in order to avoid revolution?

Linkey

So essentially you are saying that even if a state is not democratic, the people living in it are likely advantaged if there is a nearby democratic state, simply due to the necessity of the government to please its citizens in order to avoid revolution? — Igitur

Yes.

Lionino

This post is so riddled with political and historical ignorance that any recommendation I could give would sound patronising.

Tarskian

In my experience, democracy is a severely flawed system.

You can easily find a democratic majority for ideas that sound good but that are otherwise surprisingly bad, such as "let's tax the rich". The populace simply does not understand second-order consequences.

For example, the safety of airplanes existentially depends on rigorously preventing the average individual from having any say whatsoever on their design. The same holds true for the legal system. I simply do not want the average individual to have a say on that either.

I prefer monarchies such as the Emirate of Dubai because I do not want to be governed according to the delusions of a retarded populace.

Vera Mont

This post is so riddled with political and historical ignorance that any recommendation I could give would sound patronising. — Lionino

And take too long to explain.

BC

↪Linkey

A problem of comparing democracy to monarchy is that there are few ruling monarchies with which to compare democracy. There are many more non-monarchical states that are authoritarian or so politically dysfunctional they are failed states. Somalia comes to mind, as does Venezuela and Sudan.

Martin Luther said that people were better off being ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian. A risk of highly concentrated power (despots, kings, presidents) is that there is a large risk that they will be of the "dumb" variety rather than the "smart" kind, like Donald Trump.

"Democratic countries" vary quite a bit in their actual democratic performance. The United States is a prime example of variable (sometimes dismal) democratic performance.

Tarskian

Martin Luther said that people were better off being ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian. — BC

The Emirate of Dubai offers just one product, which is globally tremendously and increasingly popular, i.e. freedom from the aberrations caused by democracy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai

Dubai has been ruled by the Al Maktoum family since 1833; the emirate is an absolute monarchy.

The city has a population of around 3.60 million (as of 2022).[19] More than 90% of the population are expatriates.

461,000 Westerners live in the United Arab Emirates, making up 5.1% of its total population.

People vote with their feet.

They reject rule by the mob.

Millions more would want to live in Dubai and be governed by its emir instead of the mob back home, but they cannot afford it financially:

Dubai is the second most expensive city in the region and 20th most expensive city in the world.

It is all about supply and demand. Dubai cannot expand fast enough to accommodate demand. Don't try to get into Singapore either. That small island is also full now.

It is an increasingly expensive privilege to escape the madness of democracy and to get access to a sane alternative.

The poor cannot afford the government by the emir product, unless they get hired by an employer in Dubai, which is not easy to find. There is simply too much demand.

That is why the poor must stay where they are and keep governing themselves; which they know to be a living nightmare.

Democracy is delusional.

Lionino

Dubai is a city built on oil money and Indian slave work, not on competence and scientific breakthrough. If every city were like Dubai it would be horrible news for civilisation. If every city were like Leiden or Bologna we would be reaching the stars.

Tarskian

Leiden or Bologna — Lionino

The global poor want to move there because they can get handouts, i .e. free housing, free healthcare, free education, welfare benefits, and so on.

Who is supposed to pay for all of that?

How sustainable is all of that?

How many more poor people from around the world are Leiden and Bologna going to take in before they are bankrupt?

All of that is just delusional.

Dubai can keep expanding. Leiden or Bologna? I don't think so.

Furthermore, even the poor do not really like to live off charity.

It's not particularly dignified.

Deep inside, they'd rather work for the money.

Do you really believe that they proudly write to people back home how much more money they managed to receive in welfare benefits?

When they land a good job in Dubai, they are "da man" back home. Everyone admires them, because"They did it!"

What you call "slave labor" is very prestigious in places like Bangladesh.

Lionino

The global poor want to move there because they can get handouts, i .e. free housing, free healthcare, free education, welfare benefits, and so on. — Tarskian

Getting benefits as non-EU in Italy is quite difficult, as I recall. In Denmark especially it is not a thing.

Dubai can keep expanding. — Tarskian

Because it is in the desert. So what?

Leiden or Bologna? I don't think so. — Tarskian

They can... they are both surrounded by fields.

When they land a good job in Dubai, they are "da man" back home. Everyone admires them, because"They did it!"

What you call "slave labor" is very prestigious in places like Bangladesh. — Tarskian

None of that is true. Anyway, Dubai is a bubble built on luck, Bologna and Leiden have 1000 and 500 years of successful history respectively. The model is obvious.

We all know what the rich arabs of Dubai pay Instagram models to do on their bodies. Dubai is much more degenerate than it meets the eye.

If they had found no oil, there is no universe in which Dubai would have been more than a fishing village, like it was 50 years ago.

Tarskian

Because it is in the desert. — Lionino

No, not because they are in the desert. Because they don't need to give out handouts in order to expand.

They can... they are both surrounded by fields. — Lionino

And where are they going to grow the food, if they keep expanding?

Dubai is a bubble built on luck — Lionino

No, no, there is definitely some logic to the madness over there. People like it a lot. They really like the zero-tax strategy, especially when they have a lot of money.

We all know what the rich Arabs of Dubai pay Instagram models to do on their bodies. Dubai is much more degenerate than it meets the eye. — Lionino

It is human nature itself that is more degenerate than it meets the eye. But then again, all of that is not the rule but the rare exception. Most people don't like that shit (pun intended).

If they had found no oil, there is no universe in which Dubai would have been more than a fishing village, like it was 50 years ago. — Lionino

We'll see. Nayib Bukele is trying the same thing in El Salvador. He wants to build "Bitcoin city", which should be similar to Dubai, i.e. zero income tax, no stupid regulations, no social-justice warriors in its government, and so on:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_City

I don't think that Bukele can do it because democracy will destroy his plan. The social-justice warriors will want to tax and redistribute from the Bitcoin billionaires even before anybody sets foot there. So, nobody is ever going to show up.

Lionino

No, not because they are in the desert. Because they don't need to give out handouts in order to expand. — Tarskian

What?

And where are they going to grow the food, if they keep expanding? — Tarskian

The food that the city consumes does not come from the fields immediately next to it...

No, no, there is definitely some logic to the madness over there. People like it a lot. They really like the zero-tax strategy, especially when they have a lot of money. — Tarskian

The logic is that UAE accounts for 3% of the world oil supply despite having less than one thousand of a percentage of the world population. And Dubai isn't zero tax. It has import/export taxes, property taxes, service taxes, etc. It just doesn't cut money out of your income directly. If it had zero tax it would collapse, it is not an ancap State.

Most people don't like that shit (pun intended). — Tarskian

So I wonder why every Instagram/Youtube clown wants to move to Dubai, but not engineers and philosophers.

We'll see. Nayib Bukele is trying the same thing in El Salvador. — Tarskian

Nayib Bukele is a successful statesman and El Salvador does not have infinite money (for 150 years) like Dubai. No connection.

Tarskian

The food that the city consumes does not come from the fields immediately next to it... — Lionino

I don't think that the people in Leiden or Bologna want to turn their neighboring countryside into a concrete jungle of endless suburbs.

And Dubai isn't zero tax. It has import/export taxes, property taxes, service taxes, etc. It just doesn't cut money out of your income directly. — Lionino

Wealthy people object to personal income tax, wealth tax, and capital gains tax. The other taxes don't matter particularly much, if they are reasonable, which they are in Dubai. The question:

How much money did you make last year? Because we want at least half!

leads to stupid games:

I didn't make any money. Corporation XYZ did, and they are located in the Seychelles or in another tax haven.

If it had zero tax it would collapse — Lionino

A government that does not need to spend on healthcare, education, or retirement, because like in the old days, people deal with that by themselves, does not need much tax revenue to stay nicely afloat. I guess that 10% of GDP is already more than enough.

So I wonder why every Instagram/Youtube clown wants to move to Dubai, but not engineers and philosophers. — Lionino

Not true.

For example, Dubai has a massive cryptocurrency industry. From the top of my hat, Binance and Bybit are in Dubai.

The point is that software engineers can and usually do work remotely. So, there is no need to move to Dubai.

Furthermore, countries like Thailand and the Philippines are considered more fun than Dubai, and also cheaper.

Personal income tax is not an issue for digital nomads because these countries are not interested in what you are doing on your laptop. The digital nomad visa is typically even like that: no personal income tax.

It's only the management that really needs to sit in Dubai. They are the ones who enjoy sitting in endless meetings.

A lot of trade on Africa and the Middle East is also concentrated in Dubai. For example, Dubai is undoubtedly the biggest gold and (increasingly) diamond market in the world. There are also lots of manufacturing product warehouses and logistics in Dubai.

These businesses are less visible than social media influencers but they are much, much bigger.

BC

And where are they going to grow the food, if they keep expanding? — Tarskian

One might well ask the residents of Dubai where they will get their food when the age of oil is over --certainly not by their own efforts, being in the desert as it is. Bananas don't grow on Burj Khalifas.

NOS4A2

↪Linkey

What we call “democracy” nowadays is dressed-up oligarchy, modelled on the Roman republic. There is a ruling class, not a body of free and sovereign people.

Tarskian

One might well ask the residents of Dubai where they will get their food when the age of oil is over --certainly not by their own efforts, being in the desert as it is. Bananas don't grow on Burj Khalifas. — BC

Dubai doesn't live of oil today already. What you are seeing today, is already their post-oil strategy.

There are 3.3 million people in Dubai of whom only 300 000 are Emirati nationals. There are even more westerners (450,000+) in Dubai than Emirati.

They have a GDP/Capita of $46k/person, which puts them globally in the top league for income.

The Emirati are barely numerous enough to handle police, army, immigration, and other critical security personnel staffing of their city.

In my opinion, the Emirati are actively stretching the number of foreigners that they currently take in, to the very maximum that they can reasonably handle.

BC

The global poor want to move there because they can get handouts, i .e. free housing, free healthcare, free education, welfare benefits, and so on.

Who is supposed to pay for all of that? — Tarskian

If you really thought the poor could get "free housing, free healthcare, free education, welfare benefits, and so on" you would no doubt be in line to get those benefits yourself!

An only reasonably prosperous state can afford to assist its citizens who have fallen into poverty. How do they do that? Through taxes, of course.

Why do reasonably prosperous, and successful states have poor people? a) technological changes which render some skilled and unskilled labor obsolete; b) the business cycle (expansion and contraction); c) chronic disease and disability (not thinking of drug dependency here, but that's another factor); d) ordinary misfortune--like the Emir's limo runs over Mr. Tarskian, leaving him unable to work for the rest of his life--that kind of misfortune.

Reasonably prosperous and successful states don't have huge numbers of people on the welfare roles collecting general assistance and food stamps. Reasonably prosperous and successful states have most of their adult population of working age in jobs which the workers consider much superior to being either unemployed or on welfare (which in many industrialized states is fairly parsimonious). Reasonably prosperous and successful states are usually operate under some sort of democratic system. Workers and capitalists in reasonably prosperous and successful states are willing to be taxed to pay for the cost of being a civilized society which takes care of people experiencing tough times.

How can citizens in a merely reasonably prosperous and successful state afford to take care of unfortunate people? They can because they produce a surplus of wealth, some of which can be spent on welfare.

BTW, readily available education, housing, and medical care are not a frill -- they are essential components of a successful society--both socially and economically.

BC

What we call “democracy” nowadays is dressed-up oligarchy, modelled on the Roman republic. There is a ruling class, not a body of free and sovereign people. — NOS4A2

I disagree with you fairly often, but you are right on the money here.

Tarskian

BTW, readily available education, housing, and medical care are not a frill -- they are essential components of a successful society--both socially and economically. — BC

The Dubai Emirati do not pay for education, healthcare, housing , or retirement benefits for the 90% foreigners of their population.

All of that are not essential components of a successful Dubai. Paternalistically babysitting other people is not an ingredient of success. Robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't either.

The foreigners pay for private service by themselves.

BC

Dubai doesn't live of oil today already. — Tarskian

My mistake. Bananas still don't grow on Burj Khalifas.

NOS4A2

↪BC

I disagree with you as well.

Tarskian

Bananas still don't grow on Burj Khalifas. — BC

I view Emirati with respect.

I may not always agree with all the nitty gritty details of what they are doing but on the whole I consider their post-oil strategy surprisingly successful.

I think that the Emir of Dubai is a great leader for his people and for the foreigners who can afford to join.

Linkey

People vote with their feet.

They reject rule by the mob.

Millions more would want to live in Dubai and be governed by its emir instead of the mob back home, but they cannot afford it financially: — Tarskian

Even if that's true about the Dubai, it does not contradict what I have said: the rulers of UAE can't allow themselves to become despots, because otherwise they will get a revolt.
And yes, the authoritrian rulers like Napoleon or Lee Kaun Yew often become great reformers, maybe more often than democratic leaders. I understand that.

Tarskian

Even if that's true about the Dubai, it does not contradict what I have said: the rulers of UAE can't allow themselves to become despots, because otherwise they will get a revolt. — Linkey

A revolt by foreigners?
Because that's 90% of the population.
Theyd rather jump on the first plane out of there.

The Emirati themselves are too much part of the local power structure to revolt. They can outsource
everything to foreigners but they cannot outsource control. Furthermore, it's all about intermarried clan loyalties around the Emir. I think that an Emirati revolt is quite unlikely.

Vera Mont

↪Linkey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lessons_of_History
That's a little book, distilled from 10 previous big books, all worth reading.

Athena

For instance, ancient Macedonia was more civilized than ancient Persia, even though both were monarchies. This difference can be attributed to Macedonia’s proximity to Greece and the democratic traditions of the latter. — Linkey

How do you justify that statement? Or where is the evidence? I have a book about Persia that I haven't read and no book about Macedonia. So I have no idea how Macedonia was more civilized. The Persians had impressive architecture and crafted items and art. They had religious freedom. How does that add up to being less civilized?

Athena

What we call “democracy” nowadays is dressed-up oligarchy, modelled on the Roman republic. There is a ruling class, not a body of free and sovereign people. — NOS4A2

I would love to discuss what education has to do with that. Liberal education was for those who were expected to be politically active. And being politically active meant more than voting the party ticket. Individuals in the US had authority and were not subject to policies that were made without their participation. Today, even doctors are treated like laborers working on an assembly. Teachers are no longer the authority in their classrooms.

Our reality today is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. However, I think we are modeling Germany under the Prussians who lived for war because we have so completely embraced ruling by policy that is set without the participation of those affected by the policy. That bureaucratic technology is not Roman but is the enemy we defended our democracy against in two world wars.

Athena

If democracy is discredited worldwide, the world risks regressing into a new Middle Ages, which is a deeply concerning prospect. This scenario becomes more likely if Russia defeats Ukraine in the current conflict. — Linkey

In the 1920s a newspaper printed a warning. "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war."

We know the economies of all industrial nations collapsed and the world went to war. Since then the US has made a considerable investment in controlling the world's oil supply and its national debt is out of control, because wars are expensive. Now it appears Mother Nature is also out to get us as natural disasters are also very costly. But our high-tech society still believes God is taking good care of us and we do not need to pay attention to science. However, as the Greeks believed if we don't get things right, they can go very badly. I don't think the Bible makes that so clear. We stopped educating for good moral judgment and left moral training to the Church. We want plenty of cheap gas as though reality should not get in the way of what we want. Now we hope if God doesn't take of us, AI will.

Our Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility but are we feeling responsible for our national decisions?

Linkey

How do you justify that statement? Or where is the evidence? I have a book about Persia that I haven't read and no book about Macedonia. So I have no idea how Macedonia was more civilized. The Persians had impressive architecture and crafted items and art. They had religious freedom. How does that add up to being less civilized? — Athena

I suppose, the Persians had a larger oppression of the lower classes by the rulers. The Persia was an Oriental Despotism, and the Greeks considered all Persians as the slaves of their king.
I had read a book "Sex and the evolution of the human nature" by Matt Ridley which describes the Briffault's law in human societis, including the Eastern empires. In all these empires, the monarchs and his feudals took a lot of women from the lower classes into their harems, and I heard that rather often the men from the lower classes remained without women because of this.

Tarskian

I suppose, the Persians had a larger oppression of the lower classes by the rulers. The Persia was an Oriental Despotism, and the Greeks considered all Persians as the slaves of their king. — Linkey

From the point of view of Persia, Greece must have looked like a constellation of incessantly warring tribes and townships, to whom they could have brought a bit of peace by appointing a Persian governor over that jungle. They actually offered to do so multiple times.

The Greek, however, preferred the freedom to beat the sh*t out of each other. It kept them alert and on their toes. So, eventually the Macedonians managed to bring an end to the Greek jungle warfare. After that, the Romans took over the task of preventing the Greek tribes from slitting each other's throats.

The first reaction against being treated as the slaves of the king actually also came from the east.

First, the Jews objected to their king inventing new laws because there was only one God and he had invented all the laws already. Next, the Muslims brought that principle to a whole new level by claiming to be the slaves of God already. So, how could they also be the slaves of a king?

In all these empires, the monarchs and his feudals took a lot of women from the lower classes into their harems, and I heard that rather often the men from the lower classes remained without women because of this. — Linkey

The problem is that when women are completely free to choose, they replicate exactly this pattern and only want to deal with the 5% most valuable men, while rejecting all other men. Modern women would rather die alone surrounded by cats than to settle for the average Joe.

Why Democracy Matters: Lessons from History

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions