The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Eamonnca1]

Some people in America talk about freedom being a product of guns, but the truth is freedom is a product of democracy and the rule of law.

I agree that giving people too much of a say can be a problem, like they do in California where voters get to micromanage everything. But I think that the kind of parliamentary democracy that's popular in Europe is a much better compromise.

[omaghjoe]

Some people in America talk about freedom being a product of guns, but the truth is freedom is a product of democracy and the rule of law.

I agree that giving people too much of a say can be a problem, like they do in California where voters get to micromanage everything. But I think that the kind of parliamentary democracy that's popular in Europe is a much better compromise.

What is freedom tho Eammon? Ive been asking what it is and no one seems to able to give me a definite answer so I've concluded it must be subjective rather than objective. A state of mind, Which means you could have it anywhere... including an autocracy.

As you say (almost) rule of law, obedience to that law, which requires a carrot (usually some sort of ideal) and a stick (police, justice) comes first, long before democracy.And I dont believe any civilisation has existed in history without either being completely isolated or having some sort of defence

Europe has many different styles of government but they are all subject to the same problem of going with the consensus of an uninformed and manipulated electorate. Or to put it more simply putting power in the hands of the popular instead of the qualified.

[J70]

Some people in America talk about freedom being a product of guns, but the truth is freedom is a product of democracy and the rule of law.

I agree that giving people too much of a say can be a problem, like they do in California where voters get to micromanage everything. But I think that the kind of parliamentary democracy that's popular in Europe is a much better compromise.

What is freedom tho Eammon? Ive been asking what it is and no one seems to able to give me a definite answer so I've concluded it must be subjective rather than objective. A state of mind, Which means you could have it anywhere... including an autocracy.

As you say (almost) rule of law, obedience to that law, which requires a carrot (usually some sort of ideal) and a stick (police, justice) comes first, long before democracy.And I dont believe any civilisation has existed in history without either being completely isolated or having some sort of defence

Europe has many different styles of government but they are all subject to the same problem of going with the consensus of an uninformed and manipulated electorate. Or to put it more simply putting power in the hands of the popular instead of the qualified.

What's your favoured system of government Joe?

[omaghjoe]

I mentioned it numerous time on here prior to 2016.....Technocracy

[easytiger95]

I mentioned it numerous time on here prior to 2016.....Technocracy

Short hop from technocracy to autocracy, Joe, no?

I agree with some of your analysis re democracy, but I think you put too little emphasis on the rule of law, or rather, what democracy means for the rule of law.

For instance, in a dictatorship like Nazi Germany, there were laws, but they were not equally applicable to all citizens, which essentially subverts the rule of law, which allowed genocide to be codified and regulated.

In Communist Russia, and in today's Russia, there are laws, but they are ignored in certain instances when dealing with certain citizens (for instance the murder of critics of Putin, or the Stalinist purges). This again subverts the idea of the rule of law.

So what is the rule of law? It is the idea that any and all citizens hold the same rights before the law of a nation, no matter their background or circumstances. This law derives from the people through their elected representatives or through direct voting like referendums, is decided by the majority or the majority of their legislative representatives, and is implemented for the benefit of all (which is the clause of the American constitution that causes the most ire between liberals and conservatives - what was meant by the benefit of all? Does that mean social security and welfare, or does it mean freedom from repressive regulation? Though that is an argument for another thread).

Of course, the democratic system employs coercive force - the police, the courts, the penal system - but crucially, this force is only employed after the breaking of laws agreed by the people, is not employed against one section of the population exclusively (which is why pre-Civil rights NI could never have been recognised as a democratic society, despite a Unionist majority) and is not employed without the authorisation of the law, unlike secret police forces such as the Cheka, Stasi and Gestapo.

All of the above is an ideal - democracy is an imperfect solution, the best bad idea we have. But it surely guarantees citizens far more benefits, rights and choices than any other system out there. Much as you might think a technocracy might differ from an autocracy, they are the same thing, and cannot exist without removing the individuals rights from the centre of the governmental system.

The current unrest a la Trump, Brexit, Syria, Isis, fake news, manipulation etc is not a symptom of democracy's failure - it is a symptom of what happens when we let democracy degrade. Remember, much of the manipulation that happened during the American election was aimed at that system by an autocrat. If a vicious kleptocrat like Putin thinks democracy is a bad idea, then, for me, that is an endorsement that we need more of it. And quick.

[Declan]

+1 Easytiger

[Rossfan]

When in doubt about something my default position is to see who's for or against it.
That can get me off the fence fair quick.

[seafoid]

I mentioned it numerous time on here prior to 2016.....Technocracy

Short hop from technocracy to autocracy, Joe, no?

I agree with some of your analysis re democracy, but I think you put too little emphasis on the rule of law, or rather, what democracy means for the rule of law.

For instance, in a dictatorship like Nazi Germany, there were laws, but they were not equally applicable to all citizens, which essentially subverts the rule of law, which allowed genocide to be codified and regulated.

In Communist Russia, and in today's Russia, there are laws, but they are ignored in certain instances when dealing with certain citizens (for instance the murder of critics of Putin, or the Stalinist purges). This again subverts the idea of the rule of law.

So what is the rule of law? It is the idea that any and all citizens hold the same rights before the law of a nation, no matter their background or circumstances. This law derives from the people through their elected representatives or through direct voting like referendums, is decided by the majority or the majority of their legislative representatives, and is implemented for the benefit of all (which is the clause of the American constitution that causes the most ire between liberals and conservatives - what was meant by the benefit of all? Does that mean social security and welfare, or does it mean freedom from repressive regulation? Though that is an argument for another thread).

Of course, the democratic system employs coercive force - the police, the courts, the penal system - but crucially, this force is only employed after the breaking of laws agreed by the people, is not employed against one section of the population exclusively (which is why pre-Civil rights NI could never have been recognised as a democratic society, despite a Unionist majority) and is not employed without the authorisation of the law, unlike secret police forces such as the Cheka, Stasi and Gestapo.

All of the above is an ideal - democracy is an imperfect solution, the best bad idea we have. But it surely guarantees citizens far more benefits, rights and choices than any other system out there. Much as you might think a technocracy might differ from an autocracy, they are the same thing, and cannot exist without removing the individuals rights from the centre of the governmental system.

The current unrest a la Trump, Brexit, Syria, Isis, fake news, manipulation etc is not a symptom of democracy's failure - it is a symptom of what happens when we let democracy degrade. Remember, much of the manipulation that happened during the American election was aimed at that system by an autocrat. If a vicious kleptocrat like Putin thinks democracy is a bad idea, then, for me, that is an endorsement that we need more of it. And quick.

The current unrest is linked to the economic system. The richest 1% of Americans own more than 50% of everything. They have bought large chunks of the political system . The GOP wouldn't discuss healthcare with the last president. Clinton would only discuss a very limited range of issues. Sanders was destroyed by the Democratic party because he spoke about things lke a rational health system.

People aren't seeing any progress in their economic circumstances because most new money ends up with the rich.

Michael Moore was interviewed last week

"I think we've gone through 40 years of a country being dumbed down," Moore said. "We defunded our schools allowing them to just go into an awful state. The arts have been canceled and civics classes dropped in one third of schools
I think the equation is simple," he explained. "It's theAmerican equation. Dumb down the population and make them ignorant and stupid. Ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to hate. Trump knew that part of the equation really well. And hate leads to violence"

[Eamonnca1]

I mentioned it numerous time on here prior to 2016.....Technocracy

Short hop from technocracy to autocracy, Joe, no?

I agree with some of your analysis re democracy, but I think you put too little emphasis on the rule of law, or rather, what democracy means for the rule of law.

For instance, in a dictatorship like Nazi Germany, there were laws, but they were not equally applicable to all citizens, which essentially subverts the rule of law, which allowed genocide to be codified and regulated.

In Communist Russia, and in today's Russia, there are laws, but they are ignored in certain instances when dealing with certain citizens (for instance the murder of critics of Putin, or the Stalinist purges). This again subverts the idea of the rule of law.

So what is the rule of law? It is the idea that any and all citizens hold the same rights before the law of a nation, no matter their background or circumstances. This law derives from the people through their elected representatives or through direct voting like referendums, is decided by the majority or the majority of their legislative representatives, and is implemented for the benefit of all (which is the clause of the American constitution that causes the most ire between liberals and conservatives - what was meant by the benefit of all? Does that mean social security and welfare, or does it mean freedom from repressive regulation? Though that is an argument for another thread).

Of course, the democratic system employs coercive force - the police, the courts, the penal system - but crucially, this force is only employed after the breaking of laws agreed by the people, is not employed against one section of the population exclusively (which is why pre-Civil rights NI could never have been recognised as a democratic society, despite a Unionist majority) and is not employed without the authorisation of the law, unlike secret police forces such as the Cheka, Stasi and Gestapo.

All of the above is an ideal - democracy is an imperfect solution, the best bad idea we have. But it surely guarantees citizens far more benefits, rights and choices than any other system out there. Much as you might think a technocracy might differ from an autocracy, they are the same thing, and cannot exist without removing the individuals rights from the centre of the governmental system.

The current unrest a la Trump, Brexit, Syria, Isis, fake news, manipulation etc is not a symptom of democracy's failure - it is a symptom of what happens when we let democracy degrade. Remember, much of the manipulation that happened during the American election was aimed at that system by an autocrat. If a vicious kleptocrat like Putin thinks democracy is a bad idea, then, for me, that is an endorsement that we need more of it. And quick.

Hear hear.

[omaghjoe]

Well autocracy and technocracy sound very similar I admit but I think that's where it ends. Perhaps expand as to why you think its a short step from one to the next. Or better still perhaps talk about the faults and merits of it in its own right instead of trying to associate it with another governance system. Also cant you just as easily say democracy leads to autocracy as the people vote them in and we have numerous examples Putin, Erdogan, Chavez... etc

I wouldn't completely dispense with democracy tho, those making the decisions still have to be held accountable to those they are governing in some way, so a good system of checks and balances would still be required and a thorough and strong constitution that is voted on by the people and of course an independent justice system. However the people and the demagogues they vote for are predisposed to making selfish irrational and contradictory decisions so they should be kept as far away from the actual governance as possible. Even current democracies tend to do to an extend to make things governable such as party whips, cabinets, executives, political ideologies, Plurality voting... all are methods of taking power away from the people and keeping the system on track, stable and governable.

And following on from this, your right these things have been "degraded" lately but this should lead to a more pure form of democracy, Take Brexit... it was pure democracy in action, the people made a decision and thats what we go with, everything else be damned.

[Eamonnca1]

The communist world tried technocracy and it led to dictatorship.

[omaghjoe]

The communist world tried technocracy and it led to dictatorship.

...Germany tried democracy and it led to a Fascist dictatorship.

Discuss its on own merits

[Eamonnca1]

Okay then. The communist world tried technocracy and by and large it led to dictatorships.

The non-communist world has tried democracy and by and large it has not led to fascist dictatorships.

[omaghjoe]

Okay then. The communist world tried technocracy and by and large it led to dictatorships.

The non-communist world has tried democracy and by and large it has not led to fascist dictatorships.

Its a false analogy (or equivalence I never know). The USSR may be argued was a technocracy but most weren't and practically all were dictatorships with a single party system to begin with.

What part of Discuss its own merits don't you get? IF you want to talk about the pros and cons of dictatorship go right ahead, (presumably you think they are all negative). I'll hardly bother since I was talking about technocracy.

[Eamonnca1]

It was bad.