Are liberal democracies finished?

[Rostere]

In the modern world the failure of democracy

 

So what is the failure of democracy (And would you hold this to be inevitable?)?

 

Certainly states can collapse due to instability, bad times will wreck any country regardless of how it's led, but what exactly constitutes the failure of democracy?

 

You mention certain counter-tax evasion policies and counter-terrorism policies as examples of this. Now, regardless of whether or not these are real examples of "failures of democracy", how would they not happen under a dictatorship? Would a dictatorship have better (in your mind) policies on these subjects? Would things be better under King Barack Obama of America, the first of his name, than under President Obama? Probably not. No.

 

So maybe the failure of democracy as you put it (if there is one), is not a failure on the part of democracy, but a failure on the part of the people to uphold democracy, whether that comes from ignorance or laziness, or both.

 

So why do the people fail? The world needs hope. Every human being needs hope to remain constructive, and not turn to a destructive path. What we are seeing right now in the US, and indeed in most Western countries, is a rapid development towards increasing income gaps. Globalization, while a net positive for world economy, has created both a global upper class of extremely wealthy people who are very well positioned to gain from increased global interconnectedness, and a global working class of poor and destitute people, who are subject to increased competition due to global interconnectedness. Previously, people were even poorer all over the world (in absolute terms - try to buy an MRI scan 1000 years ago), but now we are interconnected, so my shares, which produce wealth for me, might hinge on child labour in coltan mines somewhere in Africa to do that.

 

Outsourcing of industries and raw materials collection has given us cheap phones and computers, and great wealth, but now we are seeing the twofold social effects: 1) Working, uneducated classes in developed nations will soon be no better off than their counterparts in developing nations, since they compete on the same job market. The number of unqualified jobs in industrial nations will shrink further. 2) Immigration to developed nations will contribute even more to competition for those few unqualified jobs.

 

The problem is that with increased globalization in a post-Cold War (I'd almost say post-ideological...) era, in a developing country the poor will stay poor as their salaries approach those of the developing world working class (which closes in on them from below) while the rich get richer. Everybody gets richer in absolute terms, but those already rich are the ones who get richer relative to the rest of the population. We get a situation close to the one of urbanization during the industrial revolution (which also made the rich richer due to cheap labour, and kept the poor poor due to increased competition). This is bound to create unrest and support for extremist parties. We are having historically high levels of economic inequality. Thus far, this has resulted mostly in anti-immigration sentiments and nationalistic protectionism, but eventually we are bound to see far-left socialism as well.

 

This is not a time when content citizens gather round the table, scholarly debating which of the latest reforms and initiatives might not fit 100% with a democratic state. This is increasingly a time when desperate uneducated people debate whether you should kill all the bankers, or kill all the immigrants. This is a time of both deep cynicism and hopeless apathy towards the state, which keeps this status quo in place. Sadly you can't have infinite progress (globalization) without some backlash.

 

So, in other words, it's not the democracy, it's the economy, stupid.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Define liberal.

Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

 

 

It's not that dictatorship is superior to democracy, the argument is that a democracy will devolve into a dictatorship anyway. I think democracy would work better if there was a qualification for voting, like you have to pay income tax to vote. Voting used to be limited only to property owners, it seems to me making voting universal has actually hurt democracy.

[Bester]

Liberal democracies? In what countries??

[Zoraptor]

Voting used to be limited only to property owners, it seems to me making voting universal has actually hurt democracy.

 

 

It's questionable whether a property based system (or an employment based one) is not entirely immiscible with democracy though, let alone 'liberal' democracy. It's one of those situations where it's completely accurate to describe the system in the early US as a Representative Republic rather than a democracy, or the system in Britain as Parliamentary rather than democratic in the time of limited suffrage or Rotten Boroughs.

[Walsingham]

I love how WoD seems to have completely skipped the last two hundred years of political evolution. At least in the UK.

 

The point was made very successfully that peasants weren't denied the vote because they had no wealth. They had no wealth because they were denied the vote.

 

We are all immeasurably wealthy by the standards of our ancestors, and by the standards of non-democracies. We pretend we aren't happy, but we bloody should be.

[pmp10]

So why do the people fail? The world needs hope. Every human being needs hope to remain constructive, and not turn to a destructive path. What we are seeing right now in the US, and indeed in most Western countries, is a rapid development towards increasing income gaps. Globalization, while a net positive for world economy, has created both a global upper class of extremely wealthy people who are very well positioned to gain from increased global interconnectedness, and a global working class of poor and destitute people, who are subject to increased competition due to global interconnectedness. Previously, people were even poorer all over the world (in absolute terms - try to buy an MRI scan 1000 years ago), but now we are interconnected, so my shares, which produce wealth for me, might hinge on child labour in coltan mines somewhere in Africa to do that.

 

Outsourcing of industries and raw materials collection has given us cheap phones and computers, and great wealth, but now we are seeing the twofold social effects: 1) Working, uneducated classes in developed nations will soon be no better off than their counterparts in developing nations, since they compete on the same job market. The number of unqualified jobs in industrial nations will shrink further. 2) Immigration to developed nations will contribute even more to competition for those few unqualified jobs.

 

The problem is that with increased globalization in a post-Cold War (I'd almost say post-ideological...) era, in a developing country the poor will stay poor as their salaries approach those of the developing world working class (which closes in on them from below) while the rich get richer. Everybody gets richer in absolute terms, but those already rich are the ones who get richer relative to the rest of the population. We get a situation close to the one of urbanization during the industrial revolution (which also made the rich richer due to cheap labour, and kept the poor poor due to increased competition). This is bound to create unrest and support for extremist parties. We are having historically high levels of economic inequality. Thus far, this has resulted mostly in anti-immigration sentiments and nationalistic protectionism, but eventually we are bound to see far-left socialism as well.

 

This is not a time when content citizens gather round the table, scholarly debating which of the latest reforms and initiatives might not fit 100% with a democratic state. This is increasingly a time when desperate uneducated people debate whether you should kill all the bankers, or kill all the immigrants. This is a time of both deep cynicism and hopeless apathy towards the state, which keeps this status quo in place. Sadly you can't have infinite progress (globalization) without some backlash.

 

So, in other words, it's not the democracy, it's the economy, stupid.

That's a interesting theory but it begs one question.

How can you reconcile majority getting poorer (relatively or not) with democracy?

Surely if those people are in the majority they can change wealth distribution by voting.

[Walsingham]

Wealth distribution is the most stupid pile of balls. Why shoudl it matter if my neighbour is 100 times wealthier in a year, if I am twice as wealthy in a year?

 

It's all based on the idea of a zero sum economy. Which as I say is self-evidently stupid. Although I've heard many many well educated people argue in favour of it.

 

No ****ing economists, though.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I love how WoD seems to have completely skipped the last two hundred years of political evolution. At least in the UK.

 

The point was made very successfully that peasants weren't denied the vote because they had no wealth. They had no wealth because they were denied the vote.

That assumes that the rich want to keep the poor poor. But why should they? It's not clear that they do, it's never been the American system.

 

We are all immeasurably wealthy by the standards of our ancestors, and by the standards of non-democracies. We pretend we aren't happy, but we bloody should be.

I'm happy the way things are, I'm not sure I'll be happy the way they will be soon. The leftists are slowly but surely destroying this country, at least that's my belief. As far as the improved living conditions, that's mostly the result of technology and capitalism, the political system only comes into play to the extent it hinders the former.

[Rostere]

Wealth distribution is the most stupid pile of balls. Why shoudl it matter if my neighbour is 100 times wealthier in a year, if I am twice as wealthy in a year?

 

It's all based on the idea of a zero sum economy. Which as I say is self-evidently stupid. Although I've heard many many well educated people argue in favour of it.

 

No ****ing economists, though.

 

Walsingham, I am not talking about how things should be, I am talking about how things are. It is a fact that in societies with unequal wealth distribution, the question of wealth is more a subject of stress than in other societies. Perceived well-being correlates with more even wealth distribution, shockingly enough not only among the poor. I could as well say that "War is the most stupid pile of balls. Why should two people fight, when the only one who is left laughing is the one who does not participate in the conflict?". It only reflect on what I perceive to be the ideal case by logic and not how people actually think.

 

If we are realistic, we must take into account the process in which one person got so rich. If we have a finite amount of printed money at any given point (trivially and necessarily the case in all currencies), then one person's increased wealth comes from another's decreased wealth. So that is a zero-sum game. However, money is (typically) printed all the time, so the other possibility is that all the printed money ended up in the hands of the person who got richer. Now, inflation happens only through circulation of money, so the fact that I have a pile of money won't make it harder for you to buy your daily potatoes. A rich man typically needs only the same amount of food, say potatoes, as a poor man. Potatoes only eventually get more expensive when the richer man has bought stuff that he wouldn't have bought as a poorer man from those poorer than him, who otherwise could not afford as many potatoes as they needed. This obviously works transitively, and is in practice typically a chain. This is called the "trickling down" of money. The real inflation will in most relevant cases in Western countries happen in the field of very limited resources which everyone would want. Examples:

• Apartments centrally situated in capital cities
• Fine, rare jewellery and antiques (admittedly perhaps irrelevant)
• The best education, if there is an open market (by the Highlander principle, there can only be one "best" education, so education is in fact a finite resource on a competetive market)
• The best healthcare, if there is an open market
• Shares

Even products that are in practice are in unlimited supply (stone) have a chain of delivery, are refined in plants with limited capacity et.c., so they are semi-finite by inertia.

 

So the fact that 1% suddenly became 100 times richer is going to shine through in that poorer people can no longer afford any of the above. We will have increased segregation, less social mobility, in the end less intermarriage between what becomes a "thinking class" and the "working class" because they no longer will have any natural avenues of contact. Ways to combat this is for example by making education paid for by taxes, making extra fees illegal (at least to an arbitrary part), which heightens social mobility, but stifles competition in education.

 

So the longer this system goes on, which created the huge income gaps, the more our society is going to become "us versus them", where your future is solely decided by where you were born, with different distinct social classes. This then becomes a source of illegitimacy for the wealth of the rich.

 

Eh, this was in any case pretty much all off-topic. I don't really care. My post dealt with "work force inflation", not monetary inflation.

 

That's a interesting theory but it begs one question.

How can you reconcile majority getting poorer (relatively or not) with democracy?

Surely if those people are in the majority they can change wealth distribution by voting.

 

There is a thing called universal values, and putting yourself in somebody else's shoes. As long as people regard accumulated wealth as legitimate, there is no issue.

 

In any case, just observe reality.

[BruceVC]

 

I love how WoD seems to have completely skipped the last two hundred years of political evolution. At least in the UK.

 

The point was made very successfully that peasants weren't denied the vote because they had no wealth. They had no wealth because they were denied the vote.

That assumes that the rich want to keep the poor poor. But why should they? It's not clear that they do, it's never been the American system.

 

We are all immeasurably wealthy by the standards of our ancestors, and by the standards of non-democracies. We pretend we aren't happy, but we bloody should be.

I'm happy the way things are, I'm not sure I'll be happy the way they will be soon. The leftists are slowly but surely destroying this country, at least that's my belief. As far as the improved living conditions, that's mostly the result of technology and capitalism, the political system only comes into play to the extent it hinders the former.

 

 

Don't worry WOD, most of  you forum members who live in first world countries have no idea how bad it has to get before your countries are really destroyed. I see everything that is happening as social adjustments, nothing to be worried about. As long as your economic policies  are stable and sound then things like immigration, which I understand your concern, isn't the issue you think it is

 

Come to Africa if you want to see what real destruction of some countries looks like

[Kroney]

 

That assumes that the rich want to keep the poor poor. But why should they? It's not clear that they do, it's never been the American system.

 

 

Haha what? You sure there, chief? You know how there's only a finite amount of money, right? You know that to make the poor less poor, the rich would necessarily have to give some of that up, right? What we're talking about here is you, an American right-leaning (I assume) Republican, clearly and openly advocating that the "American system" is all about resource sharing as opposed to naked capitalism. It's a see saw, for one side to be high up, the other side has to be low down. Otherwise, if you balance everybody in the middle, you've got socialism.

 

It might not be what you want to project America's system as being, but that's a whole hell of a lot different from it not actually being America's system.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Don't worry WOD, most of  you forum members who live in first world countries have no idea how bad it has to get before your countries are really destroyed. I see everything that is happening as social adjustments, nothing to be worried about. As long as your economic policies  are stable and sound then things like immigration, which I understand your concern, isn't the issue you think it is

 

Come to Africa if you want to see what real destruction of some countries looks like

I'm well aware of it. Illegal immigration is not the only issue that worries me, there's almost nothing that's going on that I like. Our economic policies are far from stable and sound, they're better characterized as suicidal. After all, great empires have fallen before, in fact always, so there's lots to be concerned about even if right now you could still say we're in great condition compared to the rest of the world. Edit : You could visit Detroit to see some Democrat lead destruction.

 

 

 

That assumes that the rich want to keep the poor poor. But why should they? It's not clear that they do, it's never been the American system.

 

Haha what? You sure there, chief? You know how there's only a finite amount of money, right? You know that to make the poor less poor, the rich would necessarily have to give some of that up, right? What we're talking about here is you, an American right-leaning (I assume) Republican, clearly and openly advocating that the "American system" is all about resource sharing as opposed to naked capitalism. It's a see saw, for one side to be high up, the other side has to be low down. Otherwise, if you balance everybody in the middle, you've got socialism.

 

It might not be what you want to project America's system as being, but that's a whole hell of a lot different from it not actually being America's system.

 

That's about as ignorant a statement on economics as I've ever seen, it actually sounds like satire. "Finite money" has nothing to do with anything, nor is it finite. The important thing is as a market economy grows, everyone who participates in it benefits. Some get more out of it, some get less, but everyone's lot improves. Edited August 14, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Kroney]

Typical communist.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The left's war on the rule of law :http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2014/08/25/untitled-n1882001

[Hurlshort]

The left's war on the rule of law :http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2014/08/25/untitled-n1882001

 

That was an insane article.

 

 

I'm not even sure it can be called an article.

 

Time to restart the tone it down campaign.

[HoonDing]

 

The left's war on the rule of law :http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2014/08/25/untitled-n1882001

 

That was an insane article.

 

 

I'm not even sure it can be called an article.

 

Time to restart the tone it down campaign.

 

Well, it was written by a former stand-up comedian.

[Rosbjerg]

Do republicans really believe that anything would really change under republican rule? A sad portion of western democracies have turned into de facto oligarchies. 

 

Here a right wing led government was destroying right and then we elected a left wing government - guess who's destroying rights now? Personally I think this all started the moment we privatized the money flow back in the beginning of the 20th century... and to get rid of this, we need to regulate or reform the flow. Under a fractional reserve system, we'll simply never be able to properly curtail the banks and the huge multinational investment firms - who are the one's playing Russian Roulette with your economy, except they are loading the bullets.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

The left's war on the rule of law :http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2014/08/25/untitled-n1882001

 

That was an insane article.

 

 

I'm not even sure it can be called an article.

 

Time to restart the tone it down campaign.

 

If you're going to make that claim, at least you should give some examples.

 

Do republicans really believe that anything would really change under republican rule? A sad portion of western democracies have turned into de facto oligarchies.

 

Here a right wing led government was destroying right and then we elected a left wing government - guess who's destroying rights now? Personally I think this all started the moment we privatized the money flow back in the beginning of the 20th century... and to get rid of this, we need to regulate or reform the flow. Under a fractional reserve system, we'll simply never be able to properly curtail the banks and the huge multinational investment firms - who are the one's playing Russian Roulette with your economy, except they are loading the bullets.

I've never seen such lawlessness in the US before. So yes, almost any change would be for the better. Edited August 29, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Enoch]

Anybody trying to convince you that The End is Nigh is trying to sell you something.  (Nothing pushes sales or votes quite like panicky fear does!)  In reality, political economies are slow-moving beasts.  There are long-axis trends within the governance of Western democracies (and the oligarchic trend has been rising sharply over the past few decades) but there are still plenty of avenues for countervailing trends to restore some kind of balance.  The obvious parallel in U.S. politics is to the late 19th century-- the last time oligarchic power was as strong as at present. That plutocratic dominance eventually inspired the successes of the populist movement, with strong anti-trust enforcement, the establishment of a sharply-progressive income tax, and other reforms. 

 

In the U.S., yes, the trends over the last generation favor federal power in place of state or local governance, and the executive over the legislature (at just about all levels).  I point out, though, that, historically, the great threats to the liberties of the individual have come from the local and state governments, rather than the Feds.  Particularly in the 20th Century, federal intervention to protect the liberties of individuals from state- or local-government oppression has been a pretty major theme in American history.   (And, in general, state and local governments are staffed with less-qualified individuals operating with less oversight from the press and official watchdog entities, relative to federal entities.)  Stuff like the recent NSA leaks are disturbing, but the average citizen has far more cause to fear morons and racists in their local police department than they do folks in Fort Meade listening in on their phone calls. 

Edited August 29, 2014 by Enoch

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Anybody trying to convince you that The End is Nigh is trying to sell you something. (Nothing pushes sales or votes quite like panicky fear does!) In reality, political economies are slow-moving beasts. There are long-axis trends within the governance of Western democracies (and the oligarchic trend has been rising sharply over the past few decades) but there are still plenty of avenues for countervailing trends to restore some kind of balance. The obvious parallel in U.S. politics is to the late 19th century-- the last time oligarchic power was as strong as at present. That plutocratic dominance eventually inspired the successes of the populist movement, with strong anti-trust enforcement, the establishment of a sharply-progressive income tax, and other reforms.

 

In the U.S., yes, the trends over the last generation favor federal power in place of state or local governance, and the executive over the legislature (at just about all levels). I point out, though, that, historically, the great threats to the liberties of the individual have come from the local and state governments, rather than the Feds. Particularly in the 20th Century, federal intervention to protect the liberties of individuals from state- or local-government oppression has been a pretty major theme in American history. (And, in general, state and local governments are staffed with less-qualified individuals operating with less oversight from the press and official watchdog entities, relative to federal entities.) Stuff like the recent NSA leaks are disturbing, but the average citizen has far more cause to fear morons and racists in their local police department than they do folks in Fort Meade listening in on their phone calls.

Your reason and logic has no place in this thread.

[Guard Dog]

Anybody trying to convince you that The End is Nigh is trying to sell you something. 

 

That was certainly the case during the gold buying craze about six years ago. However, those of us who already owned a fair amount of gold surely thank the ones who listened to Chicken Little and drove the price up to double it's real world value.

[Guard Dog]

The best analogy I've ever heard regarding the shift between left and right government is that it is like a pendulum. It's natural momentum carries it towards on extreme until that momentum is exhausted which sends it to the other. Right here in the US we observed one extreme in 2002 and the other in 2008. Tyranny, secession, civil war etc. occur when one side or the other try to seize the pendulum.

[Barothmuk]

It's a tad premature to be declaring the end of "liberal democracy" just yet, however the prosperity that the post-war boom gave the west has been dwindling for decades and is naturally going to continue to do so thus pushing 'people' to search for 'alternatives'.

The best analogy I've ever heard regarding the shift between left and right government is that it is like a pendulum. It's natural momentum carries it towards on extreme until that momentum is exhausted which sends it to the other. Right here in the US we observed one extreme in 2002 and the other in 2008.

Lol, oh wow no.

 

You had a right-wing government in 2002 and a slightly less right-wing government in 2008.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Barothmuk

[Guard Dog]

It's a tad premature to be declaring the end of "liberal democracy" just yet, however the prosperity that the post-war boom gave the west has been dwindling for decades and is naturally going to continue to do so thus pushing 'people' to search for 'alternatives'.

The best analogy I've ever heard regarding the shift between left and right government is that it is like a pendulum. It's natural momentum carries it towards on extreme until that momentum is exhausted which sends it to the other. Right here in the US we observed one extreme in 2002 and the other in 2008.

Lol, oh wow no.

 

You had a right-wing government in 2002 and a slightly less right-wing government in 2008.

 

Of course Right and Left are terms relative to where the country being discussed is generally. There is no argument that what is considered left wing in the US would be a little right in other places. I think even the most ardent supporters of real left wing socialism realize it will only come to the US in it's full form at the end of an actual civil war. US voters might flirt with it but I seriously doubt they will ever marry it. 

 

If they ever do then we'll fight.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

It's a tad premature to be declaring the end of "liberal democracy" just yet, however the prosperity that the post-war boom gave the west has been dwindling for decades and is naturally going to continue to do so thus pushing 'people' to search for 'alternatives'.

 

The best analogy I've ever heard regarding the shift between left and right government is that it is like a pendulum. It's natural momentum carries it towards on extreme until that momentum is exhausted which sends it to the other. Right here in the US we observed one extreme in 2002 and the other in 2008.

Lol, oh wow no.

 

You had a right-wing government in 2002 and a slightly less right-wing government in 2008.

Of course Right and Left are terms relative to where the country being discussed is generally. There is no argument that what is considered left wing in the US would be a little right in other places. I think even the most ardent supporters of real left wing socialism realize it will only come to the US in it's full form at the end of an actual civil war. US voters might flirt with it but I seriously doubt they will ever marry it.

 

If they ever do then we'll fight.

The problem with socialism in the US is that almost no one can properly define it. Rather than associating it with a government owning all means of production, people seem to think it means government spending money on stuff.

 

*Shrug*

 

I dunno, I feel like I generally lean left(in terms of US) on a lot of stuff, but I find myself disliking most left-wingers. IMO, moving towards corporate welfare and courting SJWs has turned them into spinless ****.