Democracy, Pros and Cons Options

[Sparrowsmith]

So I'm currently studying Mill in philosophy (On Liberty, if anyone has read it) and he speaks a lot about freedom and how best to achieve it. One of the things which has struck me as quite odd, but at the same time remarkably sensible, is how much he finds the idea of a democracy repulsive.
He admits that a democracy is something of a necessary step in achieving freedom, but, unless it is gotten rid of quickly, it can stagnate a society.

His argument boils down to a concept called "The Tyranny of the Majority". Essentially he argues that any society with a democracy will introduce legal constraints on the minority within the population, because the majority will always have more power in a democracy. This makes progress slow down to a halt. Look at prohibition, gender laws, segregation, homophobia, and pretty much any controversial issue. What will have you arrested in one generation will be shrugged at in the next, any why? Because the majority of the previous generation didn't like it, so the state made it a crime.

What Mill argues for instead is a set of principles on which all society can be based. Minimalist laws which, when followed precisely, will always maximize freedom without causing harm to others. Essentially it's a society where no matter how offended you are by something, you have no right to legally constrain the agents of such an act.

I'll avoid getting to far into all the terms just yet, so I don't end up writing an essay. My questions are as follows, would a society like this be possible? Is a democracy really a bad thing? Does a democracy offer society anything that we could not otherwise attain?

[Kaust]

Well I've come to view politicians as an unnecessary middlemen (at least, the house of lords/commons).
While it would be time-consuming if we were to vote on everything ourselves it just makes a whole lot more sense to me than to vote for someone to do that for me (and then complain about how they haven't accomplished what I wanted). If you want to have a say then you've gotta be prepared to say it, I guess I mean...
Perhaps that was too specific for this question (though I would consider that an improved method of democracy). I guess the primary problem with democracy is that with a social norm in effect is it any different from a dictatorship? The social enforcement of 'political correctness' for example means I can't tell an 'offensive' joke even when there's no-one around to be offended and even if it was quite clearly a joke; to the extent that I can't make a joke about another person different to myself in any form (gender/race/age/pretty much anything) because they are different to me, regardless of whether that aspect is a feature of the joke. Ergo, one unspecifiable group of people (anyone and everyone can tell a joke) is still silenced over another more 'easily acceptable' group.

[Sparrowsmith]

Exactly.
Even if everybody did vote on everything, would that really make everyone happiest? Bigotry reinforces bigotry. When the beliefs of the majority are always implemented, no one will ever test the fallibility of said majority. Society ceases to progress, or progresses very slowly.
To get elected, an official must pander to the beliefs of the majority. Once elected, said official can either:
A - Ignore the majority, run the country how they see best, and get harassed for lying.
B - run the country as the majority sees it, get harassed because the majority of people don't know how to run a country.

Ultimately it might be a more productive system if we do away with opinions altogether, and instead govern based on a set of rules and power checks to ensure that no one is restrained from acting unless they are restraining another with their actions.

However, this would legalize a lot of controversial things... From offensive language all the way to prostitution, drug use, and suicide.

[Kaust]

Well that sorta boils down to the age-old freedom vs control jazz. While with totalitarian levels of control it would be easy to wrap the world in cotton wool (consider all the technological dystopias out there, from Huxley's London to Zamyatin's OneState; no-one has freedom in these societies but the populace survive, have their potential's maximised even, if only as a source of labour), it is in the nature of control to reinforce itself, just as it stabilizes other things.
Conversely, freedom likes to deconstruct established boundaries, seemingly selfishly, for individual gains (while everyone can see some benefit to living longer, decisions such as 'I'm going to sit home and watch pokemon all day' or evensomething less passive/lazy like starting a petition for more bike lanes or something are personal preferences). So it becomes a question of a life of pleasure or a life of purpose (a purpose set by others of course).
This could possibly be taken further as to whether we would want life/civilization as we know it to continue; ie. is the only way for man to escape the ideological construct that he is to regress to beasthood?

(this is horrible on rereading but I'm a little pressed for time so I'll probly reword it and try to make it a bit clearer later)

[X-M-O]

However, this would legalize a lot of controversial things... From offensive language all the way to prostitution, drug use, and suicide.

I think the difficulty with that is that many people would argue that "your drug use affects everyone around you".
So it can be hard to prove that something like legalising drug use wouldn't prevent the natural rights of someone else (there are lots of debates on that topic, actually).

Even further is the idea that certain lifestyles (like those of a prostitute) increases the risk of certain diseases being spread to the general public.

Not that I particularly agree with any side of those debates, but it's something to note.

Also, suicide isn't illegal in any location that I'm aware of (maybe a few states, after checking, but that's really a dumb thing to call illegal).


I do think though, that if someone feels their rights being threatened, they tend to fight against whatever seemingly is threatening those rights.
Outside of religion/morals/whatever, there are a good many friends of mine at college who agree and argue that legalising gay marriage could create issues with the way taxes work (obvious tax benefits exist with married couples). I don't know how it would directly affect anything, but apparently they are offended at the idea (and not because they are against gay couples). I do know one guy that agrees with them and is also gay, he just says that he's happy living with his partner and could care less about getting married (of course not everyone who is gay is also interested in getting married, in just the same way that not everyone who is gay is not interested in getting married - sorry for the double-negative).

Anyway, hopefully that makes sense and doesn't sound weird, lol.

[thatbennyguy]

You are right, in that the majority in a democracy can oppress the minority, in voting for things that aren't always in the best interest of all the citizens of the country, or even beneficial to the future of the country itself. Fierlbeck says that "democracy is too responsive to the desires of a large middle class increasingly willing to disregard the muted voices of economically marginalized groups within its own borders.” I totally agree with this possibility.

That is why it is essential that that elections are both substantively and procedurally fair. Freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press help in getting the minority to express themselves. The problem is that the minority are often not very well-educated, and thus won't vote, or will vote only considering their own financial gain or apparent fairness. This is especially the case with technically sophisticated problems, where the majority just chooses the option that seems the best, when it may not necessarily the best option for the community.

Education alone cannot sustain a democracy, but as a person's education increases, their thinking tends to be in line with most professional economists etc. So I think the best option right now is to educate voters on what they're voting for, and help them realize that voting and understanding politics is important. In this way, I believe a democracy is economically, politically and morally beneficial, and we can eliminate the "tyranny of the majority" with proper education.

This post has been edited by thatbennyguy: May 30 2012, 03:11 PM

[Sparrowsmith]

However, this would legalize a lot of controversial things... From offensive language all the way to prostitution, drug use, and suicide.

I think the difficulty with that is that many people would argue that "your drug use affects everyone around you".
So it can be hard to prove that something like legalising drug use wouldn't prevent the natural rights of someone else (there are lots of debates on that topic, actually).

Even further is the idea that certain lifestyles (like those of a prostitute) increases the risk of certain diseases being spread to the general public.

Mill argues that people who's drug use affects others, or who's excessive drinking affects others, have a duty to protect others from that harm, and, if not able or willing to do that, penalized for engaging in it.
Much in the way that drinking is legal and driving is legal, but doing both at the same time is illegal. It is only person's who frequently affect others with their habits who can be restrained from the practice, and only when they are harming others.


Similar arguments follow for other issues. A diseased prostitute is just as culpable as a bad chef in a society where prostitution is legal. Mill does argue that pimping should be illegal though.
Again, complicated text
You are right though, it is not an easy call to make for a lot of issues.

we can eliminate the "tyranny of the majority" with proper education.

The question lingers, what kind of education teaches people that? And how can you teach people without forcing it upon them?

[Lato]

Hmm ok let me throw my crazy ideas into this mix First off I think the politaicans that are sopposed to guard our freedom and our "Democracy" should be brutally punished, I would get into details but im gonna try and keep it clean. Im not a fan of Democracy, I think much more of imperialism/socialism. Of course I would just be even more happy if we just didnt have names for it and just had equality! And you kinda have to ease ppl into change, so a good way to start is to just put big heavy chains around everyones necks so they know for sure that they are not free, NOBODY has freedom, trust me I live in the land of the free and my freedom was the first thing to be taken from me when I joined the army

So lets just put chains around everyone necks so thing will be equal, no more Democracy of ANY kind and just see how that works out, cause it can be any worse then whats been going on in the world lately.

[Sparrowsmith]

Hmm ok let me throw my crazy ideas into this mix First off I think the politaicans that are sopposed to guard our freedom and our "Democracy" should be brutally punished, I would get into details but im gonna try and keep it clean. Im not a fan of Democracy, I think much more of imperialism/socialism. Of course I would just be even more happy if we just didnt have names for it and just had equality! And you kinda have to ease ppl into change, so a good way to start is to just put big heavy chains around everyones necks so they know for sure that they are not free, NOBODY has freedom, trust me I live in the land of the free and my freedom was the first thing to be taken from me when I joined the army

So lets just put chains around everyone necks so thing will be equal, no more Democracy of ANY kind and just see how that works out, cause it can be any worse then whats been going on in the world lately.

Seems a tad extreme You're right though, democracy is not freedom unless you have the most popular lifestyle, which is not freedom at all. You are only free to be average in a democracy.
But fascism would be even worse.

Instead, Mill lays out a graph of what he considers the amount of freedom/versus constraint is. He concludes that the HIGHEST amount of freedom is attained when the only freedoms that aren't allowed are freedoms which infringe on the freedoms of others. This is called the harm principle.
A society that abides only by the harm principle would, in theory, be the freest a society can physically be.

[Lato]

So were rationing out freedom now? You cant have to much or to little lol kinda goes against the word itself, trying to mix that is like playing god which you cant really do...but you CAN put a chain on everyones necks thats very doable! I prefer true equality towards the goverments idea of freedom, but then again im a dreamer lol.

[rewells]

Instead, Mill lays out a graph of what he considers the amount of freedom/versus constraint is. He concludes that the HIGHEST amount of freedom is attained when the only freedoms that aren't allowed are freedoms which infringe on the freedoms of others. This is called the harm principle.
A society that abides only by the harm principle would, in theory, be the freest a society can physically be.

I haven't read Mill but I totally agree with this statement. Direct democracy, where everyone votes on everything, is dangerous without any preset rules, which is why we have the constitution and checks and balances in the U.S., but sometimes those systems can be abused. Let me give an example...

I live in North Carolina, U.S.A. In our last election, most voters voted in favor of amending our state constitution to define marriage as only a union between one man and one woman. If the proposal had been for a law, only congress people would have voted and that law could be challenged in court on grounds that it violates equal protection under the constitution. Because it was proposed as an actual amendment to the constitution, it was put to majority vote and is now impervious to legal challenges in N.C. (until the federal Supreme Court rules that it violates the U.S. constitution, which would nullify the amendment and require N.C. to recognize marriages as however they see fit to define them...).

I think leaving the rights of the minority to the opinion of the majority is ridiculous. Every time the marriage issue is put up to vote in the U.S., the majority (i.e. straight people) votes to outlaw same-sex marriage (which only affects gay people), but every time it goes before a court, the courts always decide that outlawing same-sex marriage is discriminatory based on the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution and, well, simple logic.

I could go on all day about that specific issue, but the point is that such complicated systems do make for slow progress, but it's better than mob rule. I think people in the U.S. are too ready to rely on laws to allow/restrict actions instead of having to make decisions for and look out for themselves. For example, just because the FDA decides a drug is legal doesn't mean that it's harmless to everyone, and just because it decides a drug is illegal doesn't mean it's harmful. People should educate themselves about that kind of thing. Also, you can't outlaw things like racism and homophobia - those require attitude changes. Laws are definitely necessary, but I think the foundation of a free society is its people respecting one another.

[Sparrowsmith]

Instead, Mill lays out a graph of what he considers the amount of freedom/versus constraint is. He concludes that the HIGHEST amount of freedom is attained when the only freedoms that aren't allowed are freedoms which infringe on the freedoms of others. This is called the harm principle.
A society that abides only by the harm principle would, in theory, be the freest a society can physically be.

I haven't read Mill but I totally agree with this statement. Direct democracy, where everyone votes on everything, is dangerous without any preset rules, which is why we have the constitution and checks and balances in the U.S., but sometimes those systems can be abused. Let me give an example...

I live in North Carolina, U.S.A. In our last election, most voters voted in favor of amending our state constitution to define marriage as only a union between one man and one woman. If the proposal had been for a law, only congress people would have voted and that law could be challenged in court on grounds that it violates equal protection under the constitution. Because it was proposed as an actual amendment to the constitution, it was put to majority vote and is now impervious to legal challenges in N.C. (until the federal Supreme Court rules that it violates the U.S. constitution, which would nullify the amendment and require N.C. to recognize marriages as however they see fit to define them...).

I think leaving the rights of the minority to the opinion of the majority is ridiculous. Every time the marriage issue is put up to vote in the U.S., the majority (i.e. straight people) votes to outlaw same-sex marriage (which only affects gay people), but every time it goes before a court, the courts always decide that outlawing same-sex marriage is discriminatory based on the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution and, well, simple logic.

I could go on all day about that specific issue, but the point is that such complicated systems do make for slow progress, but it's better than mob rule. I think people in the U.S. are too ready to rely on laws to allow/restrict actions instead of having to make decisions for and look out for themselves. For example, just because the FDA decides a drug is legal doesn't mean that it's harmless to everyone, and just because it decides a drug is illegal doesn't mean it's harmful. People should educate themselves about that kind of thing. Also, you can't outlaw things like racism and homophobia - those require attitude changes. Laws are definitely necessary, but I think the foundation of a free society is its people respecting one another.

I think Mill mentions all of your points in 'On Liberty' so I'd definitely recommend it, though it is a very dense text.
Laws imply that everyone is bound by the same personal limitations, which is simply not true.

[Licentia Per Ori...]

first up - The argument to support democracy is completely m00t because no such thing exists.

Democracy implies that everyone's opinion in some way counts.
But everyone's opinion is molded by the Pan Global Media System.

As pointed out by nick from the apprentice on have I got news -
"the sun ran the headline, Osbourne Listened to Sun readers, overturns pasty tax - he didn't listen to Sun Readers, He listened to the Sun"

Thus the opinion of the "masses" is going to be the opinion that those with money want them to have.
Distraction, smoke and mirrors.

Take the whole Gay marriage thing in the US - this is a distraction, Fire people up with opposing rhetoric - and they will put their energy debating something that doesn't really matter - and ignore the things that do.

It's a little known fact that the Racism in the deep south of the US was actually started on purpose by the very rich.
Who planted the seeds, and fanned the flames.

Divide and conquer - Make Johnny white and Cleatus black fight each other,
blame each other for the poverty they live in - and they won't take a moment to think
"hey hang on - were all poor, yet you 7 people have lots of money"

So this then is democracy -
Those with the money and the power, using that money and power to get more money and power.

If you have not seen the film Bullworth - I suggest you do so.
here is a clip:
Bullworth tells it like it is

However - there seems to be talk of general civil rights in here too.

oh and BTW - there is a country where you can say anything you want, prostitution drugs and suicide are all legal.

It's called the Netherlands - and it's one of the richest countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living, lowest teen pregnancy and std rate, lowest drug use rate (especially among the young) and best healthcare systems.

However i don't feel that the liberty/law conversation isn't really in keeping with the OP so instead i will focus on the system of governance.
(i'd mention something or crack a joke about it - but apparently this can result in the tears which stem from a Ban - not that i minded, was making a salad at the time, perfect garnish)

So in terms of system -
one the one hand we have total referendum politics - in which every* citizen votes on every law
on the other end of the scale we have a total dictatorship.

Now people often associate a dictatorship with a lack - and often total lack - of personal freedom.
However this is not necessarily the case (though of course, it's a dictatorship so you won't have much or any political freedoms)

That being said - there is nothing to say that you can't have as many personal freedoms as you like.
And there are a fair few dictatorships around the world where people enjoy more freedoms than most places.

What i feel is lacking from this discussion is the role of the Media.
and in the two polar systems, what is the role of the media and how much power do they (these un-elected, unaccountable billionares) actually have.

In a democratic system the Media is king.
the media gets most of it's revenue from big companies such as P&G , Chevron, Unilever, Nestle etc.
the government in a democracy - is 100% reliant on positive media exposure.
(the prime minister the News International suggests people vote for has ALWAYS won...think about that)

So in a democracy we have at the top of power and influence - a power sharing arrangement between big media and big corporate.
(2 entities motivated entirely by money, and empowered by their shareholders to exploit whatever means they can to increase profits)
And underneath these two - the goverment.

After all (and we can all agree) that a democratically elected gorvernemt will not remain in power unless it is given positive coverage by the Media.
"The hand that gives, is always above the hand that receives" - Napoleon Bonaparte

In a dictatorship - things are different.
Here the government is above the Media - and the large corporations.
and a governments prime motive* is to improve the country and there by the lives of the people in it.

However even in a dictatorship, the government is rarely above the Banks.
As these days most countries have given away the power to even issue their own currency,
Instead they sell Bonds = Debt.
and this is done with interest, the rate of which is decided by a bank called Standards & Poor
and here too we have a privately owned, for profit pan global system.

A system that was designed from it's inception to give more money / power to the rich,
while taking it from the poor.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

So in a democracy we have 3 groups of people who are un-elected, un-accountable and un-interested in whats good for the nation and it's people, with more money than the government.

These are: Multinationals, Media & Banks.
And in a sense it matters not your system of government.
For the power of these global organisations, and the network they have built for themselves is too great, and too seductive to resist with any real effect.

Why then NO to democracy.
Because (as I have hopefully demonstrated)
You have no real power regardless of system.
You have no say in the people who run the economy, or how they run it.

and money makes the world turn round.

So what does Democracy give us that a dictatorship does not?

THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE.
THE LIE OF EMPOWERMENT
THE JOKE OF "SELF DETERMINATION"

and in my opinion that's just sick.
Because a system where the people were actually put first (please don't say communism) would be grand.
and I'd be very interested in reading some ideas about what that kind of system would look like.

[rewells]

@ sparrow: Download "On Liberty "to my kindle. Can't wait to read it!

@ Licentia: I used to live in The Netherlands :-p It was AWESOME and I really want to go back permanently.

I was there in 2006 during their national elections the year their healthcare reform proposal passed, which is similar to the one being implemented in the U.S. I haven't asked my friends back there how they feel about it, but their healthcare system was very good in Amsterdam then because of doctors who made home visits, so people could seek treatment sooner rather than wait until they get really sick to go to the ER. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll work in the U.S. because people are so geographically spread out. It could work in N.Y.C. but not in like rural wyoming.

Anyway, huge digression, but interestingly the biggest difference between living in Holland and the U.S. that I noticed was media (T.V./News/Radio). There were A LOT less commercials and no 24-hour news networks that I remember. I wasn't bombarded with as much information about elections and social issues, and it was a lot better for my mental health.

I think the two party system of the U.S. lends itself to treating politics as theatre. In there Netherlands there are currently 10 parties, and if a party gets 10% of the vote, they get 10% representation in parliament. Which means the Christian parties must get along with the Animal Rights parties and the Green party, etc. The leader of the party with the most votes is Prime Minister, and everyone including the Queen have to come to a consensus on building the executive cabinet. It's called a coalition government. In the U.S., our president is our biggest celebrity, and we/the media burden him with everyone in the world's problems (I'm not just referring to Barrack Obama - all of our recent ones have had to deal with this). We have two choices, and if 51% of those of us who can be bothered to vote vote for candidate A, FOX, CNN, MSNBC and ABC tells us and the world that "we" (meaning all of us who live here) have "spoken out" and elected candidate/party A.(I was very frequently asked why I voted for George W. Bush while in The Netherlands, even though I did not - they assumed I did just because I am from America).

So yeah, back to my original point, I think it all starts with being nice and respectful of others. In the U.S., our political and media institutions encourage us to take one of two sides on nearly every social issue. This also lends itself to people doing stupid things like trying to ban same sex marriage while they could be doing something more productive, like - I don't know - spending time with their families.

Then again, our media exist because people consume it. Hell, I was watch FOX news because it's hilarious.

[Licentia Per Ori...]

So yeah, back to my original point, I think it all starts with being nice and respectful of others. In the U.S., our political and media institutions encourage us to take one of two sides on nearly every social issue. This also lends itself to people doing stupid things like trying to ban same sex marriage while they could be doing something more productive, like - I don't know - spending time with their families.

Then again, our media exist because people consume it. Hell, I was watch FOX news because it's hilarious.

be careful watching fox as a cynic - They are not stupid, they know thats a core audience. which they will mid rape just the same.

what makes me laugh about the Gay marriage thing in the US.

CHRISTIANS GETTING AGRY BECAUSE GAY'S CAN MARRY - THIS GOES AGAINST 2/3 PASSAGES IN THE BIBLE - QUE OUTRAGE.

but while you rage about that.
you ignore the fact that your entire economy and that of the world is run by money changers who make their profits charging interest on debts and have even skewed things in such a way that they force people and governments into Debt bondage

which is outlawed in 2/3 BOOKS of the bibel
is featured directly in a bible story featuring the J mann himself
and even has a special level of hell reserved for it.

but hey - 2 men love each other - that must be bad - fight fight fight -

[Sparrowsmith]

At first I thought you had missed the point Licentia, but you actually summed up some of Mill's arguments, albeit indirectly.
The Netherlands are very close to how Mill sees an ideal society, so far as restrictions themselves go, but it's arguable whether he would see all their taxes and systems as entirely perfect.
Mill was very liberalist, but also a utilitarian. He wanted what was best for everyone, but without usurping anyone's freedoms. Essentially he wanted an anti-dictatorship, where everyone is forced to make choices on how they live.
IE the only illegal things are things which reduce the amount of choice.

The arguments are much more in depth, and still outlaw a great number of things. Whoring, for example, would be legal, but pimping would be illegal. None of this would stop corporations from growing in monetary power, but would restrict them from having any physical power.
No elected figures, per se, or figures would be elected, but the people would not have a say in what is and isn't legal.
What is legal would be decided by its harm to others. Moral worth, self harm, offense, are all meaningless.

It's tough to imagine exactly what that would look like. But I do imagine the Netherlands as being close.