Ruminations on Liberal Democracies

[distraction tactics]

I think it's pertinent to point out right off the bat this isn't solely or perhaps even partly about the US.

--

All of this recent banter about Islam the west has inspired me to once again crack open a book from my bookshelf: The Lesser Evil, by Michael Ignatieff.

The premise of this book in strict, simplistic terms is the dichotomy between two flavours of liberal democracies, moral and pragmatic, and then a discussion into the rammifications of the latter in a post 9/11 world.

First, though, definitions:

The moral view of democracy, as defined by the author, is that of the strict libertarian sense, in that individuals within a society have intrinsic value and therefore are granted inalienable humnan rights.

The pragmatic view, in contrast, says that democracies are run by majority rule with checks and balances. Under this system we see rights not as inalienable, but suspendable during times of crises (ie. Canadian War Measures act, Homeland security bill).

It could be argued there is yet a third option, an amalgam between the two views but in a sense it's simply a lesser extreme of the pragmatic view.

Ultimately, my question is simply: which view do you hold? If the former, is that a reasonable position? Even if the survival of your nation-state depends on denying those ideals? If the latter, to what extent? Are liberal democracies justified in 'the lesser evil', by suspending the rights of minorities to protect the integrity of the majority? In concrete terms, should a nation allow something like torture or detention of terror suspects to retain its security? What line has to be crossed before you say enough is enough?

In a related context, do liberal democracies have the right to impose their political values on oppressive, non-democratic regimes? Does cultural tolerance mean tolerating human rights abuses? Which is a lesser evil - liberal imperialism or allowing human rights abuses to go unchecked?

[Snowflake]

do liberal democracies have the right to impose their political values on oppressive, non-democratic regimes?My personal opinion on this is no, they don't, because if a liberal democracy begins to impose it's values on other regimes, it's not a liberal, democratic regime anymore.

Short and sweet.

[distraction tactics]

My personal opinion on this is no, they don't, because if a liberal democracy begins to impose it's values on other regimes, it's not a liberal, democratic regime anymore.

Short and sweet.

So you completely deny the pragmatic view as one that bears any sembelance to a 'liberal democracy'?

[Snowflake]

So you completely deny the pragmatic view as one that bears any sembelance to a 'liberal democracy'?

Well I suppose I should've mentioned I was answering the second question you had framed rather than the first.

But to answer the main question, I would have to say if the rights are in any way removed from the people, whatever the word, it isn't a liberal democracy, but that depends on your definition of liberal democracy of course. The obvious problem, this makes it awfully hard for a democracy to survive, etc.

IOW, yes, that is my opinion.

Now if you want to apply this to the US current state, it would be my opinion that it is not a liberal democracy, not close.

[cjs55]

I hate democracy in general. But I hate moral democracy more than the other, because I think it is part of the Nietzchean pity-party humanity has gotten itself into. Pragmatic democracy is still democracy, but at least it's slightly sane, instead of totally insane.




In a related context, do liberal democracies have the right to impose their political values on oppressive, non-democratic regimes? Does cultural tolerance mean tolerating human rights abuses? Which is a lesser evil - liberal imperialism or allowing human rights abuses to go unchecked?

Liberalism is a self-defeating postmodern system. If liberalism is the same as any other system, only tolerating it's own belief structure, it thus defeats it's very purpose. Freedom only exists to be liberal: Just like in America we are only 'free' to live in a consumerist democracy.

But if liberalism strives to allow all viewpoints, including non-liberal ones, then it will obviously self-disintigrate. It results in a total lack of culture and absolutely no ability to pass any sort of value judgement on anything.

[Nemesis]

Ultimately, my question is simply: which view do you hold?The Moral view.


If the former, is that a reasonable position? Even if the survival of your nation-state depends on denying those ideals?Well, now, that's an interesting question. Would the United States be, in essence, the same nation it is now if it denied all the wonderful freedoms its citizens have come to enjoy and expect these days? To be quite honest, I think its irresponsible, nay, unjustifiable to allow any human rights to be taken away no matter what the circumstances. It's a very very slippery slope. One day the government can wiretap you without a warrant, the next you are required to record and submit all phone and internet activity to the government, next it is illegal to speak poorly of your own government, then it becomes treason to suggest something they do might be morally wrong. Of course, there are many examples in which freedoms have been taken away in times of extreme crisis, and given back just as soon as the crisis was over i.e. Abraham Lincoln placing Maryland under Martial Law during the U.S. Civil War to prevent it from seceding from the Union and, consequently causing Washington D.C. to be smack dab in the middle of Confederate territory, however, the constitution gives him this right. The current Bush administration is passing laws and trying to bypass the constitution in "the interests of national security." New reports are now surfacting that they have been using The Patriot Act to spy on regular every day Americans with absolutely no ties to the Middle East or to Islam or any terrorist organization whatsoever. Its as though it's now treating its own innocent citizens as the enemies of the state. I don't think this is justifiable under any circumstances.

In a related context, do liberal democracies have the right to impose their political values on oppressive, non-democratic regimes? Does cultural tolerance mean tolerating human rights abuses? Which is a lesser evil - liberal imperialism or allowing human rights abuses to go unchecked?This is a tricky question to answer. Does every nation have to be a democracy? As far as I'm concerned, if human rights are being respected and a nation is not up shit-creek without a paddle then no, not every country has to be a democracy. Personally, I think that nations feel a stronger sense of nationalism, pride, and brotherhood if they overthrow their own oppressive regimes without "big brother" stepping in wherever they think unjust activity is going on. I don't think there is anything wrong with imperialism as long as the people who are annexed (peacefully or not) are given the same basic rights as the original citizens of the country that took them over. Of course, I could be wrong

[Architectonic]

Are liberal democracies justified in 'the lesser evil', by suspending the rights of minorities to protect the integrity of the majority?

With the devolution of many functions of government to a lower level, there will simply be less unrepresented minorities in an absolute sense.

But until (if ever) government has been fundamentally redistributed (complete with global treaties, thus rendering war obsolete), some small degree of pragmatism is necessary, otherwise such a system cannot continue to exist against outside forces. But still less 'pragmatism' than the current US goverment for example.

[Biff_Loman]

Yes, Architectonic's point about external competition is extremely relevant. So, that being said, let us consider the following chart.


.........................P r a g m a t i c...................
Moral *-------------------------------------* Pragmatic

If it's a spectrum between two extremes, but budging at all towards the pragmatic puts one in the "pragmatic" category, I must be pragmatic. At some point you just have to make concessions to reality.

[Serotonin]

With the devolution of many functions of government to a lower level, there will simply be less unrepresented minorities in an absolute sense.
But until (if ever) government has been fundamentally redistributed (complete with global treaties, thus rendering war obsolete), some small degree of pragmatism is necessary, otherwise such a system cannot continue to exist against outside forces. But still less 'pragmatism' than the current US goverment for example.

Agreed.

We're still many centuries off this, though. So, pragmatism I guess. But I wouldn't be averse to subverting such "pragmatic concessions" myself, in the hypothetical situation that they were imposed on me.

[Star Cannon]

New reports are now surfacting that they have been using The Patriot Act to spy on regular every day Americans with absolutely no ties to the Middle East or to Islam or any terrorist organization whatsoever. Its as though it's now treating its own innocent citizens as the enemies of the state. I don't think this is justifiable under any circumstances.

At this point we have something akin to Richard Nixon and the Constitutional CRISIS that was WATERGATE... only, bigger.
So.


If it's a spectrum between two extremes, but budging at all towards the pragmatic puts one in the "pragmatic" category, I must be pragmatic. At some point you just have to make concessions to reality.

If, in the name of pragmatism, George Dubya Bush, is indeed spying on people like you and I, will you let him spy where he has no business, and use the cover of "National Security?" I don't think so. :saiyan:

Just how many pragmatic concessions have there been? We lost our right to our own wealth, then we lost the right to decide what medicines we can have, then we "concede" the right to assemble and talk as we wish, we conceded our rights to own heavy weaponry, and then what? Should be disband the bill of rights simply because some fanatic idiots can blow us up? Dying is inevitable, I don't see why everyone is eager to hold onto their lives at such a HIGH cost! I'm not saying give up and surrender but a person determined to blow up a building will find a way to do so regardless of measures taken.

[sbw]

Ultimately, my question is simply: which view do you hold? If the former, is that a reasonable position? Even if the survival of your nation-state depends on denying those ideals?

ben franklin had something to say about this. he coulda been wrong though, I guess.

Scott

[Nemesis]

*Resurrects in hopes it will spark debate*

[PenguinHunter]

I shall now lazily plug in a sort of related, fun debate I recently had with Johnny: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6664

I found it interesting to think about the "moral" vs "pragmatic" scale in relation to the UAE in that thread. I'm not sure that the dichotomy works in this case. That is, the UAE is closer to a moral democracy in my opinion but it is more pragmatic to run the country that way because of the small population size. I'll have to ponder it some more (it would probably help if I read some of the book were the terms come from as well).

[Snowflake]

*Resurrects in hopes it will spark debate*

what is there to debate?

[s'box]

Sticking with this dichotomy here is quite hard, everytime I try to think in these terms it sort of slips off.

It seems to me that for the average citizen, holding the moral view of liberal democracies is by far the most pragmatic thing one can do.

All systems seem pragmatic in this definition despite the opinion of the citizenry or the principles by which the social structure is created and governed. All human institutions, especially ones so deeply rooted like a liberal democracy will seek to perpetuate themselves and will accomplish this task, no matter the principles involved in it.

So if the state is going to do this anyway and seek its preservation at all costs, it seems to make sense to me to hold the moral stance exclusively, as a matter of check on the ever encroaching 'pragmatic' power structures, so as far as the line when one can say enough is enough, generally the assumption is that the government is always over this line.

On a more intangible level, states that can't maintain their own security without resorting to demeaning the rights of their own citizenry rarely deserve to be preserved, or at the very least are in need of a radical change in order to protect the citizenry from them.

[Zephyrus055]

People don't have intrinsic value, and therefore moral democracy looses its rational support. The principles of moral democracy are also inconsistent with producing favorable results as an absolute formula, impairing its utility to humans.

Pragmatic democracy is still operating under non-empirical sources, but atleast it has much greater reliability and utility by comparison to the former.

[Nemesis]

So you'd rather live in the Peoples' Republic of China than not live at all?

[Zephyrus055]

So you'd rather live in the Peoples' Republic of China than not live at all?
China doesn't operate under a philosophy that's result/utility centered either. Their philosophy is largely non-empirical and value centered too. But between choosing communism and moral democracy, I would choose moral democracy.

But... preferably I would want to live in a NTcracy.

[Nemesis]

or we could live in a society thats balanced between all the types.

[Zephyrus055]

or we could live in a society thats balanced between all the types.
That would remove the synergistic advantage between the types.

[Nemesis]

when i say balanced i meant in proportion

[Nemesis]

What someone SHOULD do, is put 100 people on a deserted island with all the resources they could ever possibly need except for a link to the outside world and see what happens.
Out of the 100 we could have
3 ENFJ's
2 INFJ's
2 INTP's
10 ESFP's
and so on.
I think that would be interesting.

[Zephyrus055]

when i say balanced i meant in proportion
Aww, so like:

1,000 INTPs
1,000 ESFJs

and so on?

That's what I thought you meant, and I said it would remove the synergistic advantage between the types. It is best for everyone if SJs outnumber Ns significantly. Imagine a large number of INTPs trying to do menial labor and service or clerical work. It would be an unproductive society indeed.

To maximize the synergistic effect though, the types should learn to understand the differences between their natures so that animosity built between type's differences is minimized.


What someone SHOULD do, is put 100 people on a deserted island with all the resources they could ever possibly need except for a link to the outside world and see what happens.
Out of the 100 we could have
3 ENFJ's
2 INFJ's
2 INTP's
10 ESFP's
and so on.
I think that would be interesting.
That would be an interesting experiment indeed.

[euterpenc]

Mankind is unfit to govern itself properly.

[Nemesis]

Then I say we bring back theocracy.

[Snowflake]

Mankind is unfit to govern itself properly.
Agreed.

[Architectonic]

Mankind is unfit to govern itself properly.

Who do you suggest then? God? Aliens?


What someone SHOULD do, is put 100 people on a deserted island with all the resources they could ever possibly need except for a link to the outside world and see what happens.
Out of the 100 we could have
3 ENFJ's
2 INFJ's
2 INTP's
10 ESFP's
and so on.


And we could compare that to a similar island with 50 INTPs and 50 ENTPs. ;)

[Kilby]

aliens

[sbw]

People don't have intrinsic value, and therefore moral democracy looses its rational support. The principles of moral democracy are also inconsistent with producing favorable results as an absolute formula, impairing its utility to humans.

I'm such a libertarian that one of my friends (a disillusioned republican) calls me a nihilist without further qualification. yet, I've recently decided that libertarian philosophy--even though I am in complete agreement with the doctrine of "don't hit people and don't take their stuff" (david boaz, the Cato Institute)--is inherently senseless, because most people simply do not consistently behave in accordance with anything which could be described as "long-term self-interest". they undermine their own efforts all the time (not only financially, though that's a big part of it), and as such, a purely libertarian society will only allow the peons to pursue self-destruction more quickly, which would lead to a further-destabilized society. so, if the end-goal is stability, the man has to protect the masses from themselves, even though he has no right to do so according to the libertarian philosophy which I (sincerely) adore.

I don't know if that was even coherent, and it might be a completely unoriginal idea. I look forward to your insights, comments, character attacks, etc.

Scott

[sbw]

Then I say we bring back theocracy.

they're trying their best...

Scott

[Snowflake]

I don't know if that was even coherent, and it might be a completely unoriginal idea. I look forward to your insights, comments, character attacks, etc.

Scott

It makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure that I agree with the notion that people are self destructive by nature.

[sbw]

It makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure that I agree with the notion that people are self destructive by nature.

I think that most, though not all, of them are. if anything, we NT introverts would be the most resistant to this, since we spend so much time "looking" and often decide not to "leap".

Scott

[Snowflake]

Who? General society?

[sbw]

Who? General society?

yeah. most of the people I know.

Scott

[cjs55]

yet, I've recently decided that libertarian philosophy--even though I am in complete agreement with the doctrine of "don't hit people and don't take their stuff" (david boaz, the Cato Institute)--is inherently senseless, because most people simply do not consistently behave in accordance with anything which could be described as "long-term self-interest". they undermine their own efforts all the time (not only financially, though that's a big part of it), and as such, a purely libertarian society will only allow the peons to pursue self-destruction more quickly, which would lead to a further-destabilized society. so, if the end-goal is stability, the man has to protect the masses from themselves, even though he has no right to do so according to the libertarian philosophy which I (sincerely) adore.

I think this is well put and certainly correct. Although I think that the self-destruction is not always personal, but a self-destructive to society as a whole, often due to 'tragedy of the commons' type issues.

I find libertarianism like many people find communism: Ideally, quite beautiful, but pragmatically, impossible. (I don't like communism practically or ideally).