The essential question here is how far are you willing to go to ensure the survival of democracy, either in one country, or globally? — Pneumenon

This depends on a hierarchy of values, which was not presented in the reasoning, and cannot be deduced by an interlocutor.

It is easy to see this if you switch your undisputable-by-assumption good with any other good, say, chocolate milk. How far are you willing to go to ensure the supply of chocolate milk? Slavery, mistreatment of cows, unethical market practices, invading cocoa-producing countries...

In other words, your question, to be properly answered, requires a hierarchy of values -- implicit or explicit, depending on the philosophical acumen of the one answering. But this hierarchy will be imported by the people doing the answering, it is not a given in the assumption.

In your scenario, by the way, if some agency has the power to decide that an election can be postponed for some undemocratic reason, it is doubtful to claim that the scenario is a democracy.

But this hierarchy will be imported by the people doing the answering, it is not a given in the assumption. — Mariner

Okay, cool! So how does it work out using your hierarchy of values?

The essential question here is how far are you willing to go to ensure the survival of democracy, either in one country, or globally? — Pneumenon

I'm not willing to do anything to ensure the survival of democracy. Being tied to one particular political system is a problem, not a solution.

Okay, cool! So how does it work out using your hierarchy of values? — Pneumenon

In my hierarchy, democracy is not a good, and therefore the question becomes unanswerable. I don't think it is even a necessary evil -- in my appraisal it is a quite unnecessary evil.

Therefore, from my viewpoint, the real question is, "how far are you willing to go to foster the downfall of democracy?" My answer is, not very far. There are more pressing concerns in my life. The extent of my efforts is to discuss the matter with interested people. I won't found parties, write books, or demonstrate against democracy.

In my hierarchy, democracy is not a good, and therefore the question becomes unanswerable. I don't think it is even a necessary evil -- in my appraisal it is a quite unnecessary evil. — Mariner

Ahhhh finally a kindred soul :D

In my hierarchy, democracy is not a good, and therefore the question becomes unanswerable. I don't think it is even a necessary evil -- in my appraisal it is a quite unnecessary evil. — Mariner

Gotcha. Glad to hear all that, by the way. So you have a from-a-distance appraisal of democracy, but you are not politically involved enough to care.

I am surprised - people are normally not so open about such opinions.

I am surprised - people are normally not so open about such opinions. — Pneumenon

Yep. I'm basically the only open anarchist that I know of in real life, if you don't count family members influenced by my ideas. I've met others online, though.

Assumption: democracy is inherently good, not just a decision-making procedure. — Pneumenon

First, you have to define what you mean by democracy. Technically, all it means is that, in some way, the citizens are allowed to vote for their government. In the United States, so long as you are of legal age (and pass some other criteria), you can vote. Democracy has nothing to do with the values of the state: one could have a liberal democracy or a libertarian democracy, for example.

I am an instrumentalist when it comes to political systems: I do not believe democracy is inherently good. Rather, its goodness comes from its outcomes (or, rather, its outcomes overall when compared to other political systems overall).

I tend not to like meddling in the affairs of other countries, as it usually ends poorly or comes back to haunt us later, so I am not a fan of "spreading" democracy in any favorable way.

In regards to the example you gave with a totalitarian politician, the only way it would work is if you could assassinate the politician and shift the blame entirely away to something external. In any state, the state is assumed to have de facto authority. The people must buy into the authority, even if their values and beliefs run contrary to the laws of the state. If you postpone the election, you risk having rebellion, as you not only went against the will of the people, you destroyed the democratic basis. You can't say you are protecting democracy, because you deliberately broke up democracy.

Gotcha. So if the population of a country decides that they want to vote out democracy, there is no democratic way to constrain them?

Gotcha. So if the population of a country decides that they want to vote out democracy, there is no democratic way to constrain them?

I found that funny but interesting. Why exactly would a population of people vote away their power? Democracy's weakness and strength is the stability it gives. With totalitarianism you can actually have really good times if your leader is benevolent and knows what he is doing. (Example: See Singapore/Lee Kuan Yew, or Korea/Sejong the Great). But unfortunately most of history has been the exact opposite. Democracy avoids this but makes actually fixing issues a slow and sometimes impossible task. But at least the decay is slow! What other alternative system could actually work? Maybe a sentient AI that never dies as a leader. (ergo "The Eternal Benevolent Leader") haha

Assumption: democracy is inherently good, not just a decision-making procedure. — Pneumenon

Democracy is inherent good (per the OP) but while good, it isn't the only good system. China, for instance, is not and has not been a democracy. It is a one party state which has evolved widely varying economic policies and has struck upon one that has produced widespread prosperity for many of it's people (perhaps 700,000,000 out of 1,000,000,000 are better housed, fed, and employed than were in the previous two generations.

Representative Democracy in the United States has seen both enhanced prosperity (post WWII boom) and a shrinking economy which has reduced the prosperity available to many of its citizens. If many citizens do not have access to the machinery of democracy (fair voting, fair access to the political operations, etc.) then democracy is irrelevant, at best.

Why exactly would a population of people vote away their power? — yatagarasu

I dunno. Get in a time machine and ask the Germans in the 1930s why they did that.

Not necessarily impossible, but highly unlikely. A government needs the de facto recognition of authority of the general population in order to substain itself. If the population of a democracy (again, are we talking system of voting or something including rights and political ideology beyond just voting) decides that it no longer wants a democratic government and are willing to vote for a totalitarian dictatorship, then I heavily question the de facto authority of that government if it decides to break democracy to defeat the would-be dictator. The population would lose all respect for the government and the totalitarian's allies have a lot of ammo to use against the established system.

I'm saying that a government system can only be maintained by its continued support by the population. Once enough people are willing to topple that system, the system is in trouble. I'm not sure if killing the dictator and blaming it on a rogue third party would prevent the inevitable.

...what measures are permissible to protect democracy? Is it ethical to spread democracy, rather than just protecting it? And what means would be too terrible to use, even to defend democracy?

For example, assume that the only way to protect democracy is to prevent a totalitarian politician from being elected, and in order to do so, you must either assassinate that politician, or postpone the election, allowing some time for the revolutionary fervor of that politician's supporters to die down. It may seem obvious to you that doing one of those is (or is not) a good idea. But why is it so obvious?

If Democracy is assumed to be inherently good, then a democratic society's 'general will' must also be good. Happiness is the highest good for man, it too must be the ultimate goal of a good society which is then the same as the goal for each individual man, the pursuit of happiness. If happiness for each is the result of virtue then happiness for all must be the result of a virtuous. society.

Every democracy is constituted, composed of laws, customs, norms (institutional and ideological) as well as a variety of citizens each with their own agendas. Protection of a good system of government, then is the same as an individual protection of their happiness. Moral virtue.

A good society it ought to be protected. The limit of that protection as set by normative moral laws of the society. Protection from other countries is a patriotic duty, Protection from internal challenges must be met legislatively and judicially.

The Germans didn't vote away their power, it was stolen by the Nazi Party.

China isn't a one party state? What are the various parties?

Democracy's weakness and strength is the stability it gives. With totalitarianism you can actually have really good times if your leader is benevolent and knows what he is doing. (Example: See Singapore/Lee Kuan Yew, or Korea/Sejong the Great). But unfortunately most of history has been the exact opposite. Democracy avoids this but makes actually fixing issues a slow and sometimes impossible task. — yatagarasu

I think it's the opposite really. Democratic systems tend to change their ruling party from time to time (for instance just look at the U.S. where they went from Obama to Trump). In contrast, totalitarian countries usually have the same ruling party (and in a lot of cases the same person) as the head of government for decades. Democracy, if anything, is good at avoiding corruption, which is unfortunately something that most totalitarian governments fall victim to.

It can rule out the abolishment of the democratic system through its constitution. So, an undemocratic agenda is ipso facto unconstitutional and can be dealt with by the law. — Πετροκότσυφας

I see! So it is not the case that the will of the people, or the majority vote, is always the democratic choice; we have to place restrictions on what the vote can do from the outset.

It can rule out the abolishment of the democratic system through its constitution. So, an undemocratic agenda is ipso facto unconstitutional and can be dealt with by the law. — Πετροκότσυφας

And the Constitution cannot be amended? :-!

If the constitution says that some of its articles are not amendable, then these articles are not amendable. — Πετροκότσυφας

Good, then we first amend the article that says those articles are not amendable, then we proceed to amend the unamendable articles. Deal? X-)

Check and mate. :D

More importantly, though... If the constitution cannot be amended by the will of the people, then it ain't democratic.

More importantly, though... If the constitution cannot be amended by the will of the people, then it ain't democratic. — Pneumenon

"the will of the people" is a myth ultimately. "The people" don't have a will. Only individuals do. The myth of the "will of the people" is the most effective tool for control in a democracy. Maybe we can talk about "the will of the people" in a small group - say 50 people - but for millions, there is no common will. Choosing between black and white - that's not the will of the people, they're simply not given other choices.

So democracy, too, is a myth. Far from being evil, it just doesn't exist!

How undemocratic.

So democracy, too, is a myth. — Pneumenon

Yes, for sure. All political regimes are myths - the world moves through political regimes cyclically. In today's world we have returned to the democracy of the Greeks - the same democracy that killed Socrates. But it is a transformed democracy, it is a democracy of this age. But that is no problem. Soon the other regimes will be coming back as well. Monarchies and all the rest. They will not be like monarchies of 300 years ago. They will be monarchies of this age.

And why should we be attached to democracy? That regime which sent all the greatest people who have ever lived to death. Jesus Christ was killed by a democracy too. Who do you want? asked Pilate to the raging crowd. "Barabbas! We want Barabbas!". And what shall I do with Jesus? asked Pilate. "Crucify him! Crucify him!"

So the only way not to allow for a self-defeating democracy is to be undemocratic. It's almost as if democracy is self-negating or something!

I think we're at an end of an era. A period of great conflict and darkness looms over us, and when we shall emerge from it, we'll never be the same again. Trying to think linearly from today's society to the future will not work, because a radical break is going to happen, and it will happen inevitably. Western society is at an end - our current technology will not be sustainable, and the world 300 years from now will be extremely different than we are tempted to imagine. We may not even be a technological society anymore. It's hard to say.

f your definition of "democratic" implies that defense of democracy is undemocratic, then sure, it is. — Πετροκότσυφας

Well, you just said that the only way to avoid a self-defeating democracy was to limit people's voting, which is undemocratic. If people can't abolish their current form of government by means of voting, then their current government is undemocratic.