Dictatorship is neither left nor right

[untermensche]

All you're saying is allowing a minority to own slaves for centuries screwed things up for a long time even after race based slavery was outlawed.

You are not talking about any general trend of democracy.

The trend of democracy is to expand rights, not limit them.

In the US in my lifetime we have the expansion of rights for women, black people and homosexuals, and many others.

Rights are being expanded.

To claim the opposite is blindness.

If the government listened to the will of the people, like they're supposed to, the insane drug war would have ended a long time ago.

If the will of the people were obeyed there would have been universal health insurance a long time ago.

The problem in democracy is when the will of the people is ignored.

 

[PyramidHead]

It is possible to believe:

1. The institutions of slavery, segregation, etc. that were imposed upon blacks and other minorities were not democratic even though they were approved by elected representatives

2. The reforms that abolished these institutions were not democratic either, even though they were approved by elected representatives

So, in terms of parliamentary politics, there isn't much interesting to be found in the way of democracy to differentiate these two policies. But we don't get the whole story just by looking at what the government does. Slavery was imposed by one class of people upon another (and class is defined by your function in the economy, not by your bank account or skin color). The slave class struggled to resist the imposition of slavery and to find solidarity with free members of society to win them to their cause. The same thing happened again in the civil rights movement, when ordinary people who were being marginalized by powerful forces banded together and stood up for their rights, prompting concessions from the ruling class in response to their pushback. These changes don't come about from government officials sitting in sensory deprivation chambers and deciding to change their philosophical views about liberty, they are outcomes of protracted and usually violent clash between a mass of exploited and disenfranchised people against a minority of rich and powerful ones. That is where the democracy of social progress is properly located, not in the votes counted in Washington.

 

[untermensche]

It is possible to believe:

1. The institutions of slavery, segregation, etc. that were imposed upon blacks and other minorities were not democratic even though they were approved by elected representatives

What happened in the US was the same minority that was owning slaves and prospering from their torture was also the same minority writing the laws.

It is true that if you allow a minority to carry out great immorality it will poison and pollute the whole society.

Democracy will not immediately cure racism in the minds of a majority.

But as we saw. In time even with a lot of racists democracy was able to make things better.

The trend in US democracy was from centuries of sickness and immorality towards a greater morality.

2. The reforms that abolished these institutions were not democratic either, even though they were approved by elected representatives

They were what having a democracy slowly produced.

Democracy and an open society go together. The more transparent the actions of the government the better the democracy will be.

As a society opens and government action becomes more transparent problems become clearer and solutions become more dire.

The Civil Rights Act was the end result of over a decade of public protests and open discussion. And when it passed a majority in the nation supported it.

It was what a democracy produces.

While a minority of slave owners with too much power produces a sick society that withstands the positive forces of democracy strongly.

So, in terms of parliamentary politics, there isn't much interesting to be found in the way of democracy to differentiate these two policies.

One is a deliberate deprivation of human rights. It is deliberately depriving a set of humans any power.

And the other is the way human rights are expanded. It is a way to give all some power.

Slavery was imposed by one class of people upon another (and class is defined by your function in the economy, not by your bank account or skin color). The slave class struggled to resist the imposition of slavery and to find solidarity with free members of society to win them to their cause.

Slavery was imposed by a sadistic minority that denied what they clearly knew to make themselves money.

To make their crimes easier they instituted racist indoctrination and created generations of racists.

What democracy has had to overcome were centuries of racist indoctrination by a minority that created generations of racists.

And democracy won.

The society that is open and respondent to problems won.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The trend of democracy is to expand rights, not limit them.

In the US in my lifetime we have the expansion of rights for women, black people and homosexuals, and many others.

Rights are being expanded.

To claim the opposite is blindness.

That explains the USAPATRIOT Act.

 

[untermensche]

The trend of democracy is to expand rights, not limit them.

In the US in my lifetime we have the expansion of rights for women, black people and homosexuals, and many others.

Rights are being expanded.

To claim the opposite is blindness.

That explains the USAPATRIOT Act.

What rights did you lose?

Was that an expression of the public?

Something the public was demanding like civil rights?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You don't know what rights are violated by the USAPATRIOT Act?

Seriously?

• It violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
• It violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
• It violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
• It violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
• It allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. The Patriot Act gives the attorney general unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants. The attorney general can order detention based on a certification that he or she has "reasonable grounds to believe" a non-citizen endangers national security. Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.
• The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
• The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
• Judicial oversight of these powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
• Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
• A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

I'm sure that none of that bothers you as this oppression applies equally to all races and genders.

 

[untermensche]

Was that an expression of the public will?

Something the public was demanding like civil rights?

5. What is Democracy?



Government authority flows from the people and is based upon their consent.



Democracy is a system of government in which a country’s political leaders are chosen by the people in regular, free, and fair elections. In a democracy, people have a choice between different candidates and parties who want the power to govern. The people can criticize and replace their elected leaders and representatives if they do not perform well. The people are sovereign—they are the highest authority—and government is based on the will of the people. Elected representatives at the national and local levels must listen to the people and be responsive to their needs.

https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/DemocracyEducation0204.htm

The shit that happened after 911 was not an expression of democracy

It was an expression of "The Shock Doctrine". It was highly anti-democratic. Democracy is not people voting. It is when elected servants, not leaders, are working to implement ideas that have won a consensus.

In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999

 

[dismal]

Was that an expression of the public will?

Something the public was demanding like civil rights?



https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/DemocracyEducation0204.htm

The shit that happened after 911 was not an expression of democracy

It was an expression of "The Shock Doctrine". It was highly anti-democratic. Democracy is not people voting. It is when elected servants, not leaders, are working to implement ideas that have won a consensus.

https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999

When the people vote for leader who do things unter no like it's not democracy.

When unelected judges do things unter like it is democracy.

If unter likee it's democracy. If unter no-likee it's no democracy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Was that an expression of the public will?

You tell me if that describes the USAPATRIOT Act. If it is, then we have definitive proof that democracies can be bad.

 

[untermensche]

Was that an expression of the public will?

Something the public was demanding like civil rights?



https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/DemocracyEducation0204.htm

The shit that happened after 911 was not an expression of democracy

It was an expression of "The Shock Doctrine". It was highly anti-democratic. Democracy is not people voting. It is when elected servants, not leaders, are working to implement ideas that have won a consensus.

https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999

When the people vote for leader who do things unter no like it's not democracy.

When unelected judges do things unter like it is democracy.

If unter likee it's democracy. If unter no-likee it's no democracy.

Democracy is a delicate thing.

It isn't just voting as the simple minded believe.

It is about voting for servants, not leaders.

It is about the population forming consensuses and the servants implementing them.

Top down dictates like the Patriot Act that form from thin air without one meeting are not democracy.

Democracy is a delicate thing.

 

[dismal]

When the people vote for leader who do things unter no like it's not democracy.

When unelected judges do things unter like it is democracy.

If unter likee it's democracy. If unter no-likee it's no democracy.

Democracy is a delicate thing.

It isn't just voting as the simple minded believe.

It is about voting for servants, not leaders.

It is about the population forming consensuses and the servants implementing them.

Top down dictates like the Patriot Act that form from thin air without one meeting are not democracy.

Democracy is a delicate thing.

Democracy is a process for making decisions. It can result in any manner of decisions. The Iraq war was hugely popular And supported by elected leaders and resolutions in Congress. The supreme court adopting Roe v. Wade or nationalizing gay marriage is not democratic at all, except to the extent the supreme court is appointed and confirmed by elected leaders. There are many things every day we can read about every day that are supported by the public that don't make it into law.

For example, I just read this:

A large majority of Americans—73 percent—say that neither race nor ethnicity should be factors in deciding which students are granted admission to colleges and universities. Only 7 percent think race and ethnicity should be major factors, and 19 percent favor allowing them to be light factors

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2019/02/26/most-americans-reject-race-based-college-admissions/

Yet we have political leaders and leaders of state run colleges that implement and fight for race based admissions policies. Yet we have a supreme court that ignores the clear Constitutional prohibition of race preferences in public policies to approve them.

So, just to be sure: race preferences in state college admissions against the clear and overwhelming preference of the people is not democracy right? The servants not implementing the consensus? Whereas in the Iraq war the servants did implement the consensus so that was democracy?

 

[untermensche]

Democracy is a process for making decisions. It can result in any manner of decisions. The Iraq war was hugely popular And supported by elected leaders and resolutions in Congress.

Decisions are supposed to be made by everybody working together beyond the political process.

And democracy is a way to implement those decisions. If it is working.

The terrorist attack of Iraq was not something that arose from the demands of the people.

It was something that a tiny few wanted and used 911 and a pack of lies to frighten a majority into allowing a terrorist attack of a nation that posed no threat to the US.

It was scumbags using the tricks of dictators to subvert democracy.

When you are Dick Cheney lying and saying Iraq was reconstituting it's nuclear program it is not democracy.

Secrecy weakens democracy.

Lies that can't be checked because of secrecy kill it.

The supreme court adopting Roe v. Wade or nationalizing gay marriage is not democratic at all

The Supreme Court just recognized rights that was already there, just not recognized.

The rights of a fetus should not take precedence over the right of somebody trying to survive in a hostile world.

The gay person should not be denied the pain and pleasure of marriage.

There is no good reason to have laws restricting these rights.

A large majority of Americans—73 percent—say that neither race nor ethnicity should be factors in deciding which students are granted admission to colleges and universities. Only 7 percent think race and ethnicity should be major factors, and 19 percent favor allowing them to be light factors

I agree.

Poverty should be the strong deciding factor, not race, to try to pull as many from poverty as possible.

It should be white and black poverty and every color that exists and massive resources have to put out at the local level to enhance substandard education.

But the insane drug war needs to end as well and the massive incarceration of the poor has to end as well.

 

[dismal]

Decisions are supposed to be made by everybody working together beyond the political process.

And democracy is a way to implement those decisions. If it is working.

The terrorist attack of Iraq was not something that arose from the demands of the people.

It was something that a tiny few wanted and used 911 and a pack of lies to frighten a majority into allowing a terrorist attack of a nation that posed no threat to the US.

It was scumbags using the tricks of dictators to subvert democracy.

When you are Dick Cheney lying and saying Iraq was reconstituting it's nuclear program it is not democracy.

Secrecy weakens democracy.

Lies that can't be checked because of secrecy kill it.



The Supreme Court just recognized rights that was already there, just not recognized.

The rights of a fetus should not take precedence over the right of somebody trying to survive in a hostile world.

The gay person should not be denied the pain and pleasure of marriage.

There is no good reason to have laws restricting these rights.

A large majority of Americans—73 percent—say that neither race nor ethnicity should be factors in deciding which students are granted admission to colleges and universities. Only 7 percent think race and ethnicity should be major factors, and 19 percent favor allowing them to be light factors

I agree.

Poverty should be the strong deciding factor, not race, to try to pull as many from poverty as possible.

It should be white and black poverty and every color that exists and massive resources have to put out at the local level to enhance substandard education.

But the insane drug war needs to end as well and the massive incarceration of the poor has to end as well.

We're not talking about what you agree and don't agree with we're talking about what is and isn't democracy.

Oh wait...those seem to be the same thing.

 

[untermensche]

I didn't create this.

It is what some people created to explain democracy to Iraqi's after we so kindly handed it to them.

5. What is Democracy?



Government authority flows from the people and is based upon their consent.



Democracy is a system of government in which a country’s political leaders are chosen by the people in regular, free, and fair elections. In a democracy, people have a choice between different candidates and parties who want the power to govern. The people can criticize and replace their elected leaders and representatives if they do not perform well. The people are sovereign—they are the highest authority—and government is based on the will of the people. Elected representatives at the national and local levels must listen to the people and be responsive to their needs.

https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/DemocracyEducation0204.htm

The attack of Iraq did not flow up from the people.

It came down from a handful of very sick individuals.

And GW was never elected to begin with.

It represented a danger of democracy, not a flaw.

Lying by so-called "leaders" can always distort democracy.

It is something that always has to be watched.

But it is only a problem with top down democracy.

In bottom up democracy servants are elected not so-called "leaders".

 

[PyramidHead]

Democracy is a process for making decisions. It can result in any manner of decisions. The Iraq war was hugely popular And supported by elected leaders and resolutions in Congress. The supreme court adopting Roe v. Wade or nationalizing gay marriage is not democratic at all, except to the extent the supreme court is appointed and confirmed by elected leaders. There are many things every day we can read about every day that are supported by the public that don't make it into law.

Yes, and vice versa. The democracy of a representative system, especially ones that allow second- and third-degree representatives to be appointed by the ones who are voted for, is vanishingly small at the level of formal government policy.

A large majority of Americans—73 percent—say that neither race nor ethnicity should be factors in deciding which students are granted admission to colleges and universities. Only 7 percent think race and ethnicity should be major factors, and 19 percent favor allowing them to be light factors

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2019/02/26/most-americans-reject-race-based-college-admissions/

Yet we have political leaders and leaders of state run colleges that implement and fight for race based admissions policies. Yet we have a supreme court that ignores the clear Constitutional prohibition of race preferences in public policies to approve them.

So, just to be sure: race preferences in state college admissions against the clear and overwhelming preference of the people is not democracy right? The servants not implementing the consensus? Whereas in the Iraq war the servants did implement the consensus so that was democracy?

I wouldn't call either of them particularly democratic, if I can hijack your exchange here. And simply putting them up to a majority vote by the entire population wouldn't really be a satisfactory solution either, even though that would obviously be more democratic. No, the kind of democracy that is valued by libertarians (and here I am using the term in the global and historical sense) is not a property of individual decisions, but of the whole culture. Having a single matter be settled democratically isn't useful if the culture that educates the participants and shapes their preferences is itself non-democratic.

It is this combination of democratic elements within a non-democratic sociology that generates the "tyranny of the majority" wherever it appears. In all such cases, the short-term fix for the symptom might be an override mechanism to subvert the will of a majority, but in the long term the only solution is to widen the scope of democracy.

There is an interesting parallel between critics of democracy in the workplace and critics of science as a tool for understanding the origin of the universe and life. Both will point to what they claim is the misapplication of the thing they are arguing must be restrained. Creationists will point to the nuclear bomb as "scientific rationalism gone wrong" as an appeal to caution, as if the problem with those who deployed nuclear bombs was that they were too rational. Of course, the actual problem was that scientific rigor was employed in the context of non-scientific ideology. If everybody on all sides of the conflict were maximally rational and scientifically-minded, that would have resulted in less nuclear bombing, not more! The same is true of democracy and its supposed mishaps. For every hypothetical scenario of a business whose employees democratically decide not to hire black people, the inescapable conclusion is that such scenarios would never occur in the first place if all of society were arranged around egalitarian democracy from the bottom up. You only get those distortions when a democratic mechanism is slapped on the outer shell of a brainwashed populace.

 

[dismal]

I didn't create this.

It is what some people created to explain democracy to Iraqi's after we so kindly handed it to them.

5. What is Democracy?



Government authority flows from the people and is based upon their consent.



Democracy is a system of government in which a country’s political leaders are chosen by the people in regular, free, and fair elections. In a democracy, people have a choice between different candidates and parties who want the power to govern. The people can criticize and replace their elected leaders and representatives if they do not perform well. The people are sovereign—they are the highest authority—and government is based on the will of the people. Elected representatives at the national and local levels must listen to the people and be responsive to their needs.

https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/DemocracyEducation0204.htm

The attack of Iraq did not flow up from the people.

It came down from a handful of very sick individuals.

And GW was never elected to begin with.

It represented a danger of democracy, not a flaw.

Lying by so-called "leaders" can always distort democracy.

It is something that always has to be watched.

But it is only a problem with top down democracy.

In bottom up democracy servants are elected not so-called "leaders".

You can just say "unter-no-likee so no-democracee". It would save you some typing and be just as effective.

 

[untermensche]

You can just say "unter-no-likee so no-democracee". It would save you some typing and be just as effective.

I can say democracy is where the will of the people is expressed through elected servants and the clueless will never understand it.

 

[dismal]

You can just say "unter-no-likee so no-democracee". It would save you some typing and be just as effective.

I can say democracy is where the will of the people is expressed through elected servants and the clueless will never understand it.

OK, so what are some outcomes democracy has produced that you really, really don't like.

 

[untermensche]

You can just say "unter-no-likee so no-democracee". It would save you some typing and be just as effective.

I can say democracy is where the will of the people is expressed through elected servants and the clueless will never understand it.

OK, so what are some outcomes democracy has produced that you really, really don't like.

Democracy is a way to move away from bad outcomes.

It stands opposed to what came before it. Dictatorship.

But people must be educated to understand that it is far more than just voting for the corporate candidates chosen by the oligarchy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

OK, so what are some outcomes democracy has produced that you really, really don't like.

Democracy is a way to move away from bad outcomes.

So if the will of the people is expressed through their elected servants to do good it is democracy, but if the will of the people is expressed through their elected servants to do bad it is not democracy.