US Citizens: Please vote tomorrow

[svart-hvitt]

I'm definitely a "less is more" person when it comes to government, but as has been said in the past - democracy is the worst form of government except for all the alternatives. My issue is that government invariably seems to decide it knows more about how individuals should live than those individuals and those with a great love for the people rarely see to held human beings in much regard.

Democracy worst form of government?

The Swiss are very proud of their system. And Switzerland ranks around first place in so many rankings.

I suspect the notion that «democracy is the worst form of government except for all the alternatives» has been put forward and perpetuated by people who are not of a particularly democratic bent. And these people are on war path these days, trying to undo and ridicule democratic processes.

This is a very serious issue on which media has little focus.

 

[JJB70]

Democracy worst form of government?

The Swiss are very proud of their system. And Switzerland ranks around first place in so many rankings.

I suspect the notion that «democracy is the worst form of government except for all the alternatives» has been put forward and perpetuated by people who are not of a particularly democratic bent. And these people are on war path these days, trying to undo and ridicule democratic processes.

This is a very serious issue on which media has little focus.

The problem with democracy is ultimately it can become just another form of tyranny. If a majority decides that they know what is best for people then they impose it regardless of what the minority wants. This may be a bit of a contrarian view but many of the worst criminals of history were pretty popular.

 

[svart-hvitt]

The problem with democracy is ultimately it can become just another form of tyranny. If a majority decides that they know what is best for people then they impose it regardless of what the minority wants. This may be a bit of a contrarian view but many of the worst criminals of history were pretty popular.

What often gets lost in modern society, where the social sciences try and mimick the natural sciences, is that democracy is not like an electric appliance that can be put on and it works. Democracy is philosophy, a mind set, that needs constant nurturing. If you take democracy for granted, forget the philosophy, the values and principles on which it’s founded, democracy may weaken. So democracy is not like an audio box you can unpack in another place on earth, and it works - every time. In other words, democracy is not one way of government; you need local adjustments based on local institutions, local social habits. People who think democracy is a turn key solution, like electrical gear and physics, don’t get this.

Democracy has been under pressure for decades. In its place grew neoliberalism, which is another «philosophy» which uses democracy as a hygiene factor to make neoliberalism even more powerful than it would have been without empty democracy.

What’s happened all over the place lately is that the neoliberal elite has been terrified by people using democracy to signal that they’re fed up with the resultats of decades with a neoliberal social order.

 

[JJB70]

What often gets lost in modern society, where the social sciences try and mimick the natural sciences, is that democracy is not like an electric appliance that can be put on and it works. Democracy is philosophy, a mind set, that needs constant nurturing. If you take democracy for granted, forget the philosophy, the values and principles on which it’s founded, democracy may weaken. So democracy is not like an audio box you can unpack in another place on earth, and it works - every time. In other words, democracy is not one way of government; you need local adjustments based on local institutions, local social habits. People who think democracy is a turn key solution, like electrical gear and physics, don’t get this.

Democracy has been under pressure for decades. In its place grew neoliberalism, which is another «philosophy» which uses democracy as a hygiene factor to make neoliberalism even more powerful than it would have been without empty democracy.

What’s happened all over the place lately is that the neoliberal elite has been terrified by people using democracy to signal that they’re fed up with the resultats of decades with a neoliberal social order.

I think what you are saying is that there is good democracy and there is bad democracy. Good democracy is democracy we like and agree with. Bad democracy is democracy we don't agree with. What is neoliberalism? If you believe fully in democracy then if a majority is in favour of neoliberalism then that it has a democratic mandate.

In a functioning society we need certain rules to govern how we interact, but I really don't see why it is the business of a government to take an interest in what happens between consenting adults in a bedroom, what I eat or drink, whether a woman can wear a head scarf or veil or whether I want to be offensive (btw, I don't, but I try and avoid being offensive because it is wrong, not because a government starts selecting what will be allowed as free speech) or any of the other things government has seen fit to get involved in.

Hence why democracy can become another form of tyranny.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I think what you are saying is that there is good democracy and there is bad democracy. Good democracy is democracy we like and agree with. Bad democracy is democracy we don't agree with. What is neoliberalism? If you believe fully in democracy then if a majority is in favour of neoliberalism then that it has a democratic mandate.

In a functioning society we need certain rules to govern how we interact, but I really don't see why it is the business of a government to take an interest in what happens between consenting adults in a bedroom, what I eat or drink, whether a woman can wear a head scarf or veil or whether I want to be offensive (btw, I don't, but I try and avoid being offensive because it is wrong, not because a government starts selecting what will be allowed as free speech) or any of the other things government has seen fit to get involved in.

Hence why democracy can become another form of tyranny.

The difference between democracy and neoliberalism is that democracy is based on one man, one vote, while neoliberalism is based on one dollar, one vote.

This is the 5 second definition.

If you don’t understand intuitively what is neoliberalism, I think it takes thousands of hours of study and many years of experience to figure it out. That’s my experience. And you need a curious mind as well.

One more thing: You don’t need democracy to have neoliberalism, so there is a big difference between neoliberal order and democratic order.

 

[JJB70]

The difference between democracy and neoliberalism is that democracy is based on one man, one vote, while neoliberalism is based on one dollar, one vote.

This is the 5 second definition.

If you don’t understand intuitively what is neoliberalism, I think it takes thousands of hours of study and many years of experience to figure it out. That’s my experience. And you need a curious mind as well.

One more thing: You don’t need democracy to have neoliberalism, so there is a big difference between neoliberal order and democratic order.

But that is basically just saying you don't like some forms of democracy. Neoliberalism is just a label people give to a bogey man (bogey person?) they don't like, it's like labelling anything that is seen as a threat to you're own chosen nirvana as socialism, communism, fascism, Islamism or any of the other bogey labels used to frighten people.

Ultimately the only reason any of these things are a threat is because of the principle that people seem to believe government has a right to interfere in how we lead our lives. To be honest I really don't care what anybody else believes in, political ideology, religious faith or anything else so long as they don't expect me to follow them. The unifying thread of all of these philosophies which I don't like (although I accept that others are free to buy into them if they like) is the idea of subsuming the individual in a collective.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Do you have the actual quote?

Like I said, I may have misinterpreted you. But it was this quote:

Only the non-voter can be sure that they will not have made the 'wrong' decision.

My argument was simply that in some cases not voting will be the worse (ie “wrong”) decision.

 

[andreasmaaan]

But that is basically just saying you don't like some forms of democracy. Neoliberalism is just a label people give to a bogey man (bogey person?) they don't like, it's like labelling anything that is seen as a threat to you're own chosen nirvana as socialism, communism, fascism, Islamism or any of the other bogey labels used to frighten people.

Ultimately the only reason any of these things are a threat is because of the principle that people seem to believe government has a right to interfere in how we lead our lives. To be honest I really don't care what anybody else believes in, political ideology, religious faith or anything else so long as they don't expect me to follow them. The unifying thread of all of these philosophies which I don't like (although I accept that others are free to buy into them if they like) is the idea of subsuming the individual in a collective.

But do you not see having a democratic government in the first place as subsuming the individual into some kind of collective?

Intuitively, I can appreciate this libertarian (or anarchist) viewpoint, but I wonder where the line is drawn. Is there no form of obligatory cooperation that is acceptable?

 

[JJB70]

But do you not see having a democratic government in the first place as subsuming the individual into some kind of collective?

Intuitively, I can appreciate this libertarian (or anarchist) viewpoint, but I wonder where the line is drawn. Is there no form of obligatory cooperation that is acceptable?

I accept having a democratic government, but like I say I believe "less is more" when it comes to government. I fully accept that there needs to be certain controls to allow a society to function, law and order etc, but I also think that such controls should stop short of interfering in peoples beliefs, trying to control how people think, what we eat or drink, whether women wear a headscarf etc. And I object in principle to the idea that the state can take upon itself the right to decide what is good for us and then impose their decisions as to what is good for us on us whether we like it or not, that way lies madness.

 

[Thomas savage]

I accept having a democratic government, but like I say I believe "less is more" when it comes to government. I fully accept that there needs to be certain controls to allow a society to function, law and order etc, but I also think that such controls should stop short of interfering in peoples beliefs, trying to control how people think, what we eat or drink, whether women wear a headscarf etc. And I object in principle to the idea that the state can take upon itself the right to decide what is good for us and then impose their decisions as to what is good for us on us whether we like it or not, that way lies madness.

Somewhere along the line the tail started to wag the dog but people are lazy and give up responsibility for themselves so readily it’s bound to end this way. It’s like government/the state has become a mother and a father , individuals have seemingly surrendered their power for the trophy of idleness.

We are to blame for this not politicians, I belive after a certain evolution of society governance just reflects not our will but our collective apathy . You can point to a trend for wider participation in politics , greater intrest and higher voter turn out but I think that’s more to do with the mobilisation of egotism , agitation and opinion rather than a true intrest in the betterment of mankind though political organisation(s) and our collective power.

I’d love to be wrong but when I look out the window that’s what I see.

 

[JJB70]

I work in the political field, in a particularly technical area involving matters of both environmental protection and safety. I'm actually a tree hugger (yes, libertarians can hug trees) but one of the things that never ceases to disappoint me is how so many politicians, government agencies and green NGOs claiming to be desperate to save people really don't give a toss about people as individuals.

 

[svart-hvitt]

But that is basically just saying you don't like some forms of democracy. Neoliberalism is just a label people give to a bogey man (bogey person?) they don't like, it's like labelling anything that is seen as a threat to you're own chosen nirvana as socialism, communism, fascism, Islamism or any of the other bogey labels used to frighten people.

Ultimately the only reason any of these things are a threat is because of the principle that people seem to believe government has a right to interfere in how we lead our lives. To be honest I really don't care what anybody else believes in, political ideology, religious faith or anything else so long as they don't expect me to follow them. The unifying thread of all of these philosophies which I don't like (although I accept that others are free to buy into them if they like) is the idea of subsuming the individual in a collective.

You write that «neoliberalism is just a label».

That is a gross, yet widespread misunderstanding. In 2016, Adam Smith Institute finally came out of the closet as neoliberals:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/coming-out-as-neoliberals

And there is an increasingly large literature on neoliberalism from the historian’s perspective.

That’s why I wrote that it takes some time to digest the fact that neoliberalism is today’s religion, eating up democratic institutions from the inside.

This perspective is quite interesting once you spend some time and effort looking into it.

I am not trying to win an argument here. My only wish is to contribute to our understanding of modern democracy.

 

[SIY]

That is a gross, yet widespread misunderstanding. In 2016, Adam Smith Institute finally came out of the closet as neoliberals:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/coming-out-as-neoliberals

1. Pro-markets
2. Pro-property rights
3. Pro-growth
4. Individualistic
5. Empirical and open-minded
6. Globalist in outlook
7. Optimistic about the future
8. Focused on changing the world for the better

The horror, the horror!

 

[svart-hvitt]

The horror, the horror!

On their modus operandi (quote from 1987):

"We propose things which people regard as being on the edge of lunacy," says its president, Dr. Madsen Pirie. "The next thing you know, they're on the edge of policy."
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1987/dec/22/uk.past

 

[Cosmik]

"We propose things which people regard as being on the edge of lunacy," says its president, Dr. Madsen Pirie.

Believe it or not, he's often in a local pub to me. Pretty sure I'm the only person outside his circle who recognises him.

 

[Ron Texas]

Hey dudes, the election is over.

 

[Wombat]

Hey dudes, the election is over.

The next one has begun. The sun will rise tomorrow and shine brighter for some than others, as always.

 

[Sal1950]

I wish you guys would stop referring to the US as a democracy, that word puts a bad taste in my mouth.
Much preferable would be using the term Republic.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Is there anyone here who simply doesn't vote, for rational reasons?

I've simply not voted in some individual elections. The most recent a candidate who represented some of the things I wanted, but was despicable in many others versus one who had desired outcomes I disagreed with in totality. The despicable candidate further got that position because the other candidates on his side of things were there as clear bought and paid for insiders who also were all in on some prosecutable back room dealing that only didn't get prosecuted because all the old boys were in on it. And it had become known to the public, but there were no other choices.

But as is sometimes said, not to choose is still to make a choice.

 

[Wombat]

I wish you guys would stop referring to the US as a democracy, that word puts a bad taste in my mouth.
Much preferable would be using the term Republic.

Democratic Republic it seems, even if powerful influencers subvert/pervert the system to their own ends.. Sometimes more of one than the other(D vs R).

You are possibly correct at the moment. Presidential power is more in keeping with a Republic.