Democracy can be a bad thing

I'm not even speaking of Britain necessarily, just a hypothetical government. It is true a king or whoever could veto good legislation. But experience has suggested to me that upwards of 90% of all bills passed by the average legislature are bad. Therefore, my theory is that any measure that makes legislation more difficult to pass will most likely be of net benefit in terms of liberty. This is why I also support such practices as filibusters. People complain about them as irrational and so they are. But insofar as they impose a higher hurdle on the passage of legislation and ensure the need for broader consensus, I appreciate their existence.

 

I suppose the trick to maintaining a government thats sole purpose is to defend the natural rights of the individual is keeping it that way. Any other theories?

 

Democracy can be ineffective too. Too much different voices , different opinions, the congress hardly can pass anything.

 

Sigh, human beings are not capable of supporting themselves- we are social creatures that live in societies, so if a society doesn't provide opportunity for it's people they will have none.

When America was founded common people could claim land for themselves for free and sort of support themselves from their land and the bounty of the surrounding wilderness. Now that we live in a post industrial society, people can not be independent, except for a few crazy lonely trappers in Alaska and maybe a few other places.

 

I like how he leaves out the part where society still functions through individuals making their own individual decisions. He just assumes that individualism fails to exist when technology advances beyond farming. I provide oppertunity for myself through exercising my individual liberty in a manner of which either I can make money for myself or be paid to do so for someone else. I provide oppertunity for others when I decide to hire help or create a good that makes the lives of others more efficient. When the government does those things it failes miserably every time.

Sorry man. Your laziness and sloth doesn't justify reaching in to my wallet so you can continue on your path to utopia. I've never seen anyone starve to death in the U.S.

 

I will just ask you one question: "democratic republic of Congo, or North Korea"..... are they democratic or no? (our media calls them democratic republics, but I want your opinion)

 

True democracy IS a bad thing. When Aristotle described the many different government types, he considered true democracy to fall under governments of perversion. True democracy is led by the masses. Which means essentially that the rich and powerful will always have their way. That is why America's forefathers created a very balanced Republic. Because a republic was designed to be majority rule while also protecting a minority's liberties and preventing them from being silenced. Thus the house vs senate, checks and balances, etc. However since the rich and elite now control all political positions, what we now have is a glorified aristocracy where the rich rule regular people. And naturally this doesn't work because rich and middle class have nothing in common, and have very different interests. That is why our government seems so out of touch with its people most of the time.

 

Any country where you cannot vote your conscious is neither a democracy or a republic.

 

So the media is deceiving us?

 

No, that is what the country calls themselves. Like the People's Republic of China. And they are definitely not a republic... its just a name.

 

But individual liberty should be a priority, not the highest priority. There are a number of issues that trump individual liberty. I'm sure you can think of a bunch of things that people shouldn't be allowed to do by law. Or at least a couple. Whatever those things are, they represent priorities that should exceed the priority that the government places on individual liberty.

If individual liberty is the highest priority, law is impossible, and there are a small number of laws that I very firmly believe in and won't permit any violation of. I'm sure you can think of some that you believe in, too.

 

Individual liberty is the highest priority. Basically, leave people alone unless they are hurting someone else. So things like the seatbelt law? That is entirely unconstitutional for an adult to be legally forced by the government to wear a seatbelt. Some guy sitting at home smokes a joint and falls asleep. He can go to prison for that? that is ridiculous.

 

That's somewhat of a strawman.

Nobody is saying that law conflicts with liberty. In fact, libertarians routinely describe situations in which the government must act to prevent people from harming others or infringing on their liberty.

There are a lot of grey areas when it come to my liberty versus yours, but there are also a lot of things that I clearly am not allowed to do to you, in order that your liberty be preserved. The law is instrumental in protecting my, and your, freedom - and that should be the law's highest priority.

 

If I may step in I'll say law inherently conflicts with liberty. After all liberty is being free from restrictions on ones way of life. Laws are restrictions orchestrated by the state to limit certain peoples liberties and protect others. I suppose you could say that the states try to maximize necessary liberties and minimize dangerous liberties or that the state at least should be doing that. However there are liberties which are heavily debated like hate speech, anti government organization or abortions. In these situations there are external influences besides what is necessary to do like money or the majorities opinions and the issues become grey in a subjective society like our own. People also have different views of what is necessary.
I however feel liberty is less important than personal responsibility and acting on ones goals is far more important than being given freedom from someone who watches over you. If people aren't willing to gain and defend their values (in this case liberty) then no one will truly have those values.

 

Wrong. Mainly because today we don't live in Democracy. So, the argumentation is based on a system that it's true, calls itself democracy, but it isn't. The system is authoritarian and autocratic. The countries today are living in a plutocracy as minimium. Not democracy.

There is no decissions of majority, if not by minorities. In reality, the majority does not decide anything. Who decides is an elite. And it is the problem. What you are observing is the lack of democracy.

In real democracy you have individual liberty. As I told you in the other thread of the death of the capitalism. If you apply anarchism you will get complete freedom. Without an anarchist system you are not free. You are under the authoritism of some one else.

 

Those two sentences are not compatible. You just said unless they are hurting someone else. Therefore, people not hurting each other trumps individual liberty in the list of governmental priorities.

If individual liberty reigns supreme, people are allowed to hurt each other. And they are, to some extent, right? That extent is also the extent of individual liberty. If there is any law, then individual liberty is not the highest priority.

I agree.

I agree, again.

 

Freedom and freedoms and liberty and liberties have vastly different meanings. Freedom and liberty are all encompassing and specific while freedoms and liberties are vague and limited. You could replace freedoms and liberties with rights and licenses but it loses its punch.
What can I say individual freedom does not apply to all even rights don't(prisoners and foreigners) and the state determines this. The supposed purpose of the state from a neo libertarian view is to maximize people's rights by giving them and ensuring that they are protected. These rights are also subjective as some countries may have freedom of hate speech and others may not allow it just for an example.
My problem with the state is that it has overwhelming control of enforcement of rights and freedoms and I personally find that they have never been effective or fair. I don't think a market solution would come close to solving this either and in all likelihood be even worse. So like Kilgram I support people defining their liberties not a state or a company and I think it should be peoples responsibility to defend them.

 

Actually no, because by hurting someone, the aggressor is infringing on the individual liberty of the victim.

That is the point of protection laws and the reason for government - to protect the individual liberties of each person from infringement by other people.

 

The right to life.

 

That's a liberty. You didn't know that?

 

The media can't deceive anyone. I think you give them too much credit. People are the only ones that can deceive themselves. I don't know why people come to the false concludsion that the media has the power to misinform the ignorant masses and yet everyone thinks that the media has no effect on themselves as they are the arbiters of truth. Which one is it?

 

That's right.All the democracy in the world won't add up to a hill
of beans if a radical Supreme Court decides something like a
Ban on Guns.Which BOTH Obama's choices have already stated
they favor { Sotomayor and Kagin }.