Socrates’ criticism of democracy (i.e why its BS)

[Longknife]

 

 

The main reason I like democracy is the people who hate it.

i dont see why someone should hate democracy or any other form of government... they are all equally flawed. each is convenient for some and not so much for others, while the trully rich are simply above and beyond

 

They are not "equally flawed". Some forms of government are simply better than others. So far representative republics have been very much out-performing despotism for example.

 

 

 

I would dare argue all forms of government are "equally" flawed in that people are flawed. Democracy is "better" in the sense that it's one of the forms of government that best diminishes and slows the flaws people can bring about on a government. For example you can have a dictator who's perfect and amazing, a natural born leader. In that sense autocracy is perfectly capable of working, it's just that everyone dies, and the likelihood that his son or his vice or the like will be as good...? Pretty low. Anarchy is another that can, again, theoretically work, but the moment someone gets bold, there's problems. And communism? Communism sounds wonderful on paper, but it's possibly one of the most vulnerable forms of government to how flawed people are in practice.

    Democracy slows any chances for trouble or bad decisions to an absolute crawl, meaning that usually democracy has time to catch those bad decisions....usually. In that sense, I would still be hesitant to claim democracy is not equally flawed, simply because I think it's important to recognize a democratic government can fail and can succumb to the very same things other governments succumb to, it just takes longer. Nevertheless, stay vigilant.

[teknoman2]

 

 

The main reason I like democracy is the people who hate it.

i dont see why someone should hate democracy or any other form of government... they are all equally flawed. each is convenient for some and not so much for others, while the trully rich are simply above and beyond

 

They are not "equally flawed". Some forms of government are simply better than others. So far representative republics have been very much out-performing despotism for example.

 

trust me they are. everything manmade has as many cons as it has pros... it all depends from what angle you see the coin

[Luj1]

 

Especially favoring minorities and social fringe.

 

 

 

If there's one thing democracy doesn't do; it's favor minorities.

 

 

 

Of course. In theory.

 

But that's not how it works in practice. Democracy tends to get more and more liberal over long periods of time. Eventually a liberal democracy will come full circle - as it is today - and will , surprisingly enough, switch to favoring minorities on grounds of discrimination, social justice and social equality.

 

A good example in the West are members of the LGTB movement or immigrants, who in practice may often have greater privileges than regular citizens. Though this can greatly vary from state to state.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Luj1

[Oerwinde]

I wouldnt say they have greater privilege, but an misproportionate amount of power over policy maybe. Considering trans people make up less than half a percent of the population, they seem to have an awfully large influence on public discourse.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

The main reason I like democracy is the people who hate it.

i dont see why someone should hate democracy or any other form of government... they are all equally flawed. each is convenient for some and not so much for others, while the trully rich are simply above and beyond

 

They are not "equally flawed". Some forms of government are simply better than others. So far representative republics have been very much out-performing despotism for example.

 

trust me they are. everything manmade has as many cons as it has pros... it all depends from what angle you see the coin

 

 

Well yes, despotism is totally swell... as long as you happen to be the despot.

 

Otherwise you're far more likely to be ****ed than not, because even if your despot didn't start out as a horrible tyrant, power corrupts.

[Luj1]

The main reason I like democracy is the people who hate it.

 

 

It's not very smart to judge a system by its opposition alone.

 

Opposition is a wide spectrum. Usually the loudest (e.g people who hate it) are seldom a valid standard of measure.

[Luj1]

I wouldnt say they have greater privilege, but an misproportionate amount of power...

 

Exactly. It's about a lack of proportion, or logic, that is forthcoming in a liberal democracy.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Luj1

[Namutree]

 

 

Of course. In theory.

 

But that's not how it works in practice. Democracy tends to get more and more liberal over long periods of time. Eventually a liberal democracy will come full circle - as it is today - and will , surprisingly enough, switch to favoring minorities on grounds of discrimination, social justice and social equality.

 

Today minorities are not getting favorable treatment. At least not in the US. 

[Namutree]

I wouldnt say they have greater privilege, but an misproportionate amount of power over policy maybe. Considering trans people make up less than half a percent of the population, they seem to have an awfully large influence on public discourse.

They have next to no power. It's just that most people are sympathetic to their plight.  

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

Of course. In theory.

 

But that's not how it works in practice. Democracy tends to get more and more liberal over long periods of time. Eventually a liberal democracy will come full circle - as it is today - and will , surprisingly enough, switch to favoring minorities on grounds of discrimination, social justice and social equality.

 

Today minorities are not getting favorable treatment. At least not in the US. 

 

 

You apparently are unaware of affirmative action and other government programs which do indeed favor certain people that are generally deemed to be 'minorities'.

[Luj1]

 ... For good or ill, democracy is going to magnify the virtues and vices of those participating in it...

 

 

 

... If anything, democracy [snip] is too optimistic about human nature...

 

 

 

You're right on both counts. However the same could be said of communism or socialism, or just about any form of government. Its efficiency largely depends on individual morals and so on.

[Luj1]

 

 

 

Of course. In theory.

 

But that's not how it works in practice. Democracy tends to get more and more liberal over long periods of time. Eventually a liberal democracy will come full circle - as it is today - and will , surprisingly enough, switch to favoring minorities on grounds of discrimination, social justice and social equality.

 

 

 

 

Today minorities are not getting favorable treatment. At least not in the US. 

 

 

This can vary greatly from state to state and from minority to minority. E. g. being gay in Wisconsin isn't the same as being a black woman in Texas.

 

I don't think its smart to generalize here.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Luj1

[213374U]

So far representative republics have been very much out-performing despotism for example.

Unless you want to specify exactly what you mean by outperform, I'm going to assume that you mean from purely economic and international power perspectives. In that case, historically, despotic regimes have in fact outperformed representative republics, by far. The Achaemenid Empire completely dwarfed the Greek city-states economically, Rome eventually ceased to be a "democracy" and the Roman Empire outperformed the Roman Republic, with Augustus being as effective a ruler as he was autocratic. The Spanish Empire and France after the Thirty Years War were fairly despotic hegemonic states as well, and so on and so forth. It is only with the rise to global dominance of the British Empire that "democratic" regimes started to show a competitive potential vs autocracies. That's ~200 years, and it includes the Cold War period where democracies didn't hold a clear advantage over them Commies. And you may be interested to know that China is as of 2014 #1 economically. Not exactly a democracy, either.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

So far representative republics have been very much out-performing despotism for example.

Unless you want to specify exactly what you mean by outperform, I'm going to assume that you mean from purely economic and international power perspectives.

 

 

I'm pretty sure he meant it from the "quality of life for its citizens" perspective.

[Luj1]

There's a saying, you cant please everyone. And that's the central tendency of modern democracy - social liberalism. Do you see the problem now.

 

You cant have social liberalism and class equality, if you have social classes.

 

Democracy is a paradox. And we've combined it with liberal capitalism. That's one ugly marriage.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

There's a saying, you cant please everyone. And that's the central tendency of modern democracy - social liberalism. Do you see the problem now.

 

...Not really?

 

It's pretty much like saying "hey, you can't stop every crime, so why bother with the whole law enforcement system?".

[Namutree]

There's a saying, you cant please everyone. And that's the central tendency of modern democracy - social liberalism. Do you see the problem now.

 

You cant have social liberalism and class equality, if you have social classes.

 

Democracy is a paradox. And we've combined it with liberal capitalism. That's one ugly marriage.

What do you mean by liberal capitalism? Cuz' we strayed from laissez faire a while ago. 

 

Most of the instability in the US stems from statist campaigns like the drug war. We would be more stable if we were more liberal.

[ShadySands]

I'm glad where I live we have a benevolent dictator

[Luj1]

I'm glad where I live we have a benevolent dictator

 

 

Yup dictatorships can be "benevolent" as you put it. Forget CNN. Just look at Gaddafi and pre-war socialist Libya. It had the highest standard in North Africa, even a lot higher than that of some eastern European countries like Serbia or Bulgaria. Free healthcare and education and all that.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Luj1

[Luj1]

 

There's a saying, you cant please everyone. And that's the central tendency of modern democracy - social liberalism. Do you see the problem now.

 

...Not really?

 

 

I'm saying a classless system would perform better. But currently that is unfeasible due to the moral crisis induced by capitalism.

[Zoraptor]

I'm pretty sure he meant it from the "quality of life for its citizens" perspective.

Even in that it's certainly not a slam dunk though. Autocratic China has lifted more people in absolute terms, and more people in relative terms, out of poverty in the past thirty years than anyone else has done in history, and certainly a lot more than its closest 'democratic' analogue India has done over the same period. While that is primarily an economic measure it is certainly the most important part of 'quality of life', you're unlikely to be immensely pleased about... your ability to post whatever you want on the internet or be mean to politicians or vote out the president without repercussions if you aren't first well fed and reasonably safe economically*. There are counter points of course, especially around environmental factors and the generally 'exploitative' nature of China at present- but then India really ain't better in those regards either, even if somewhere like the EU is.

 

*Indeed, while it would be expected that poor people would vote more in democracies as a means to help themselves indirectly the reverse is true and they generally vote less than the average, often significantly so.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I'm pretty sure he meant it from the "quality of life for its citizens" perspective.

 

Even in that it's certainly not a slam dunk though. Autocratic China has lifted more people in absolute terms, and more people in relative terms, out of poverty in the past thirty years than anyone else has done in history, and certainly a lot more than its closest 'democratic' analogue India has done over the same period.

 

 

...What do we always say about correlation and causation?

[Zoraptor]

I don't know, what do we say about correlation and causation? It's not a 'lack of pirates causes global warming' type situation, having an authoritarian government with the ability to get reforms and the like done is a primary factor in the effectiveness of that government, and economy success is the pre-eminent indicator of quality of life. In neither case are they exclusively so, but there will never be any absolute correlation 1:1 causation because there can't be.

[213374U]

...What do we always say about correlation and causation?

 

I don't know. What do we say?

 

If you want to break the causal relationship -or more accurately, dispute the assumption that it exists- between the political configuration of states and the degrees of "quality of life" of their respective citizens, it's not Zoraptor's rebuttal that falls apart, it's the original argument, i.e. that "representative republics outperform despotisms" as far as quality of life of subjects are concerned. Because solely being "democratic" or not has no bearing on the quality of life of citizens, and therefore it's a question of economic development and inequality levels, mostly. Unless the sole criteria to judge "quality of life" is voting rights, in which case it's a bit of circular logic.

Edited April 6, 2015 by 213374U

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I don't know, what do we say about correlation and causation? It's not a 'lack of pirates causes global warming' type situation, having an authoritarian government with the ability to get reforms and the like done is a primary factor in the effectiveness of that government, and economy success is the pre-eminent indicator of quality of life. In neither case are they exclusively so, but there will never be any absolute correlation 1:1 causation because there can't be.

 

"China owes its success to the autocratic nature of its government" is a statement that's pretty much impossible to prove is my point.

 

Because logical-sounding explanations without experimental proof are just that, logical-sounding explanations. And those, as history has proven countless times, have an unfortunate tendency to reflect the preferences of the speaker instead of objective reality.