Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Authoritarianism is the most natural system, which humans tend to fall into. Democracy has been a grand experiment with many achievements, but humans have overpopulated and demolished much of the natural heritage that civilisations rely on. When humans appear in large numbers, they form large groups, the most powerful of which is the corporation. Today, there are many corporations with a value far higher than that of many nations.

The natural order - survival of the fittest - is returning.

The usual dynamic is that the government does not govern for the people but oligarchs. This results in unrest.

Numerous political idealists from the intelligentsia and fringe parties will then infiltrate protest movements and demonstrations, leveraging groupthink to push agendas to greater extremes. The people become more agitated and increasingly engage in sabotage and disruption.

So the authorities try to curtail disruptive crowd activity. If the crowd responds with violence, it will be met with violence. If the violence escalates enough, the government calls an official State of Emergency, suspending elections and other standard civil activity. If the activists keep the masses enraged enough, then the crackdowns will escalate to the point of authoritarianism.

There are players who actively want this, who believe that "chaos is a ladder".

[PanPan]

It is not only Democracy in decline, the human civilization is in decline.

[Good_Egg]

I think it's clear that in the US we don't have a system that is at all democratic. We are failing in every factor necessary for democracy.

You may be right. But as philosophers we should aim to be clearer about what democracy is, what's good or bad about it, and what strengthens or weakens it.

You seem to be using "democracy" in a sense that is graduated, rather than all-or-nothing. So instead of saying that a country is a democracy if it meets conditions X,Y,Z and not if it doesn't, you think it's meaningful to say that country A is more democratic than country B, but less democratic than country C. With the possibility that A could become more democratic than C if certain laws were passed there ?

My understanding would be that there are two main uses of the term "democracy".

One is about the process of voting. You might count country A more democratic than B if more decisions are made by voting, or more decisions are taken by elected representatives rather than appointees, or if more people can vote, or if people get to vote more often.

The other is about people having equal rights under the law. Including members of the executive body in the course of their duty, who have to obey the laws like anyone else. And certainly includes members of the government when off duty, in their capacity as private citizens.

Neither has anything directly to do with material equality, with the distribution of income and wealth. That's not what democracy is about.

The elections are not fair and free. In the Democratic Party the nomination is made by the DNC and not the people. Our representatives do not listen to their constituents but their major contributors. The two parties are running two of the most unpopular candidates run in our lifetime. The media is under control of a few corporations and they are not independent from the government. Almost 100% of US media helped the government propagandize the invasion and continued war in Iraq. The two parties are supposed to provide checks and balances. While they do argue of issues like abortion, they agree in what they call, bipartisanship on major issues like supporting the current extermination of Palestinians in Gaza. They also agree on giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy as well as subsidies to major corporations.

I think your complaint here amounts to the party organisations having too much power.

You're saying that if both parties agree on some policy, then the case against it doesn't get heard and judged on its merits ?

You're saying that elected representatives are not free to govern as the ordinary people wish; that they have to govern as the party officials and campaign donors wish, in order to have a chance at being returned to power at the next election ?

You're saying that the local members of each party don't
have the option of voting for their preferred candidate, but are compelled to vote for the candidate selected by the National Convention ?

What these complaints have in common is that the grip of the political parties is too strong.

It may be a valid complaint. But it's not obvious that this is a complaint about lack of democracy. Some might argue that parties are not a bug in democracy, they're a feature of it.

It's not obviously a complaint about not enough voting or about unequal rights under the law - the two obvious ways of being undemocratic. Or do you see it as such ?

[Pattern-chaser]

My understanding would be that there are two main uses of the term "democracy".

One is about the process of voting. You might count country A more democratic than B if more decisions are made by voting, or more decisions are taken by elected representatives rather than appointees, or if more people can vote, or if people get to vote more often.

The other is about people having equal rights under the law. Including members of the executive body in the course of their duty, who have to obey the laws like anyone else. And certainly includes members of the government when off duty, in their capacity as private citizens.

Is equality really an intrinsic attribute of "democracy"? I looked in a few dictionaries, and some do seem to include indirect references to equality. But others just cover your first definition. I think I'm with them. Equality is important, but I don’t think it's an inseparable part of democracy. IMO, of course.

[Sy Borg]

My understanding would be that there are two main uses of the term "democracy".

One is about the process of voting. You might count country A more democratic than B if more decisions are made by voting, or more decisions are taken by elected representatives rather than appointees, or if more people can vote, or if people get to vote more often.

The other is about people having equal rights under the law. Including members of the executive body in the course of their duty, who have to obey the laws like anyone else. And certainly includes members of the government when off duty, in their capacity as private citizens.

Is equality really an intrinsic attribute of "democracy"? I looked in a few dictionaries, and some do seem to include indirect references to equality. But others just cover your first definition. I think I'm with them. Equality is important, but I don’t think it's an inseparable part of democracy. IMO, of course.

Ostensibly, it's one adult, one vote.

However, our more peaceful democracies are rather like ducks - still on the top and paddling furiously underneath. The paddles are known as lobbyists. So, while we might all have the same number of votes as CEOs and billionaires (one), we don't have priority access.

I'm always a fan of practicality and physical examples. Consider that the high level of inequality in the "best goddam democracy in the world".

Meanwhile, Belarus has thrown off its democracy and it has far lower inequality score than the US. However, its score is similar to Belgium's.

On examining the Ineqality Index https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country, it becomes clear that South and Central America are the most inequitable nations on Earth, with Brazil the second worst after South Africa.

It's difficult to find any meaningful patterns. Equality seems to boil down to the quality of governments - whether people are lead by competent administrators or by thuggish crooks who couldn't govern their way out of a wet paper bag.

[LuckyR]

My understanding would be that there are two main uses of the term "democracy".

One is about the process of voting. You might count country A more democratic than B if more decisions are made by voting, or more decisions are taken by elected representatives rather than appointees, or if more people can vote, or if people get to vote more often.

The other is about people having equal rights under the law. Including members of the executive body in the course of their duty, who have to obey the laws like anyone else. And certainly includes members of the government when off duty, in their capacity as private citizens.

Is equality really an intrinsic attribute of "democracy"? I looked in a few dictionaries, and some do seem to include indirect references to equality. But others just cover your first definition. I think I'm with them. Equality is important, but I don’t think it's an inseparable part of democracy. IMO, of course.

Ostensibly, it's one adult, one vote.

However, our more peaceful democracies are rather like ducks - still on the top and paddling furiously underneath. The paddles are known as lobbyists. So, while we might all have the same number of votes as CEOs and billionaires (one), we don't have priority access.

I'm always a fan of practicality and physical examples. Consider that the high level of inequality in the "best goddam democracy in the world".

Meanwhile, Belarus has thrown off its democracy and it has far lower inequality score than the US. However, its score is similar to Belgium's.

On examining the Ineqality Index https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country, it becomes clear that South and Central America are the most inequitable nations on Earth, with Brazil the second worst after South Africa.

It's difficult to find any meaningful patterns. Equality seems to boil down to the quality of governments - whether people are lead by competent administrators or by thuggish crooks who couldn't govern their way out of a wet paper bag.

Well, in the equality vs inequality game, the majority of the leadership of various countries are in it for their (and their clan's) personal gain. As opposed to LEADING their country as a whole, to a better economic place.

[Sy Borg]

My understanding would be that there are two main uses of the term "democracy".

One is about the process of voting. You might count country A more democratic than B if more decisions are made by voting, or more decisions are taken by elected representatives rather than appointees, or if more people can vote, or if people get to vote more often.

The other is about people having equal rights under the law. Including members of the executive body in the course of their duty, who have to obey the laws like anyone else. And certainly includes members of the government when off duty, in their capacity as private citizens.

Is equality really an intrinsic attribute of "democracy"? I looked in a few dictionaries, and some do seem to include indirect references to equality. But others just cover your first definition. I think I'm with them. Equality is important, but I don’t think it's an inseparable part of democracy. IMO, of course.

Ostensibly, it's one adult, one vote.

However, our more peaceful democracies are rather like ducks - still on the top and paddling furiously underneath. The paddles are known as lobbyists. So, while we might all have the same number of votes as CEOs and billionaires (one), we don't have priority access.

I'm always a fan of practicality and physical examples. Consider that the high level of inequality in the "best goddam democracy in the world".

Meanwhile, Belarus has thrown off its democracy and it has far lower inequality score than the US. However, its score is similar to Belgium's.

On examining the Ineqality Index https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country, it becomes clear that South and Central America are the most inequitable nations on Earth, with Brazil the second worst after South Africa.

It's difficult to find any meaningful patterns. Equality seems to boil down to the quality of governments - whether people are lead by competent administrators or by thuggish crooks who couldn't govern their way out of a wet paper bag.

Well, in the equality vs inequality game, the majority of the leadership of various countries are in it for their (and their clan's) personal gain. As opposed to LEADING their country as a whole, to a better economic place.

I suppose that's where the connection between democracy and equality is assumed. Democracies enjoy a lower level of open kleptocracy than dictatorships; there are limits on what leaders can do. However, the covert kleptocracy in democracies through manipulation of monetary policy clearly produces fairly similar levels of inequality. One can debate the mechanism but, clearly there were some mechanisms that caused the ballooning wealth gaps in the west - and these mechanisms have been obscured by a blatantly corrupt news media.

[Good_Egg]

My understanding would be that there are two main uses of the term "democracy".

One is about the process of voting. You might count country A more democratic than B if more decisions are made by voting, or more decisions are taken by elected representatives rather than appointees, or if more people can vote, or if people get to vote more often.

The other is about people having equal rights under the law...

Is equality really an intrinsic attribute of "democracy"? I looked in a few dictionaries, and some do seem to include indirect references to equality. But others just cover your first definition. I think I'm with them.

If we're using "democracy" to refer only to the process of voting, how is Western democracy in decline ? When there seems to be as much if not more voting going on than there has ever been ?

[LuckyR]

Is equality really an intrinsic attribute of "democracy"? I looked in a few dictionaries, and some do seem to include indirect references to equality. But others just cover your first definition. I think I'm with them. Equality is important, but I don’t think it's an inseparable part of democracy. IMO, of course.

Ostensibly, it's one adult, one vote.

However, our more peaceful democracies are rather like ducks - still on the top and paddling furiously underneath. The paddles are known as lobbyists. So, while we might all have the same number of votes as CEOs and billionaires (one), we don't have priority access.

I'm always a fan of practicality and physical examples. Consider that the high level of inequality in the "best goddam democracy in the world".

Meanwhile, Belarus has thrown off its democracy and it has far lower inequality score than the US. However, its score is similar to Belgium's.

On examining the Ineqality Index https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country, it becomes clear that South and Central America are the most inequitable nations on Earth, with Brazil the second worst after South Africa.

It's difficult to find any meaningful patterns. Equality seems to boil down to the quality of governments - whether people are lead by competent administrators or by thuggish crooks who couldn't govern their way out of a wet paper bag.

Well, in the equality vs inequality game, the majority of the leadership of various countries are in it for their (and their clan's) personal gain. As opposed to LEADING their country as a whole, to a better economic place.

I suppose that's where the connection between democracy and equality is assumed. Democracies enjoy a lower level of open kleptocracy than dictatorships; there are limits on what leaders can do. However, the covert kleptocracy in democracies through manipulation of monetary policy clearly produces fairly similar levels of inequality. One can debate the mechanism but, clearly there were some mechanisms that caused the ballooning wealth gaps in the west - and these mechanisms have been obscured by a blatantly corrupt news media.

In the US it isn't a secret "mechanism" it was Reagan's huge tax cut on the wealthy. The news media covered it very well, remember trickle down economics? Everyone knew about it in real time.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, I remember it well. "Trickle-down" was the economic buzzword back then, along with metaphors such as "A rising tide raises all boats". Well, it didn't trickle down. The rich just got richer and lots of little boats sank and are sinking. The billionaires of Wall Street are doing just fine. The folks on Back-Against-The-Wall-Street, not so much.

[Pattern-chaser]

My understanding would be that there are two main uses of the term "democracy".

One is about the process of voting. You might count country A more democratic than B if more decisions are made by voting, or more decisions are taken by elected representatives rather than appointees, or if more people can vote, or if people get to vote more often.

The other is about people having equal rights under the law...

Is equality really an intrinsic attribute of "democracy"? I looked in a few dictionaries, and some do seem to include indirect references to equality. But others just cover your first definition. I think I'm with them.

If we're using "democracy" to refer only to the process of voting, how is Western democracy in decline ? When there seems to be as much if not more voting going on than there has ever been ?

I think I would expect "democracy" to refer not only to voting, but also to all that follows. Specifically, the votes lead to the appointment of a 'democratic' government, and the voters agree to abide by, and support, the results of the vote. This gives the government the democratic mandate it needs to do the job it is elected to do.

[Pattern-chaser]

The news media covered it very well, remember trickle down economics? Everyone knew about it in real time.

Yes, I was amazed and appalled back then, at the open blatancy of the misdirection. Wealth trickles up, not down...

[LuckyR]

Yes, I remember it well. "Trickle-down" was the economic buzzword back then, along with metaphors such as "A rising tide raises all boats". Well, it didn't trickle down. The rich just got richer and lots of little boats sank and are sinking. The billionaires of Wall Street are doing just fine. The folks on Back-Against-The-Wall-Street, not so much.

Half right. The wealthy got crazy wealthy, the middle made a couple of extra bucks and the poor climbed out of poverty from the record highs in the 60s to today's lower levels.

[Sy Borg]

When wealth gushes up and trickles down, the relativities are inevitable.

When enough wealth is concentrated at the top, corporations will essentially decouple from the broader economy, mostly doing B2B with each other, with no need for the custom of regular people and the small amount of money they have.

I hear that soon enough 40% of all jobs will be replaced by AI. If people are not working, dependent on government to survive, what is democracy?

[Pattern-chaser]

The wealthy got crazy wealthy, the middle made a couple of extra bucks and the poor climbed out of poverty from the record highs in the 60s to today's lower levels.

When wealth gushes up and trickles down, the relativities are inevitable.

When enough wealth is concentrated at the top, corporations will essentially decouple from the broader economy, mostly doing B2B with each other, with no need for the custom of regular people and the small amount of money they have.

I hear that soon enough 40% of all jobs will be replaced by AI. If people are not working, dependent on government to survive, what is democracy?

There are many things that contribute to this. One of them is that the rich keep their money stached away; they don't spend it. Ordinary people like us earn, and spend most of it, because we have no choice. The upshot is that *our* money circulates within the economy, making a contribution, keeping it all going. That of the super-rich is kept apart, *not* contributing to the economy...