Is democracy a utopian fraud?

[UnseenParticipant]

Will democracy inevitably collapse into oligarchy? What is the relationship between freedom and democracy? Isn’t democracy based on suspending one’s freedom in the pursuit of order, and isn’t oligarchy more conducive to order than democracy?

[_Robert_Participant]

Dictatorships lead to oligarchies. Look at Saudi and Russia. Democracies lead to Social Democracies that tax the wealthy progressively to elevate society. Unless of course it is the US we are talking about. The US is already an Idiocracy.

 

Throughout history, Muslims like the “KJ Reports” team led by Kasim Javed and Ahmed Ajmi, have never overly pro-democratic. It just doesn’t work well with such a restrictive religion.

https://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+kj+reports&oq=muslim+kj+reports&aqs=edge..69i57j69i60j69i64.10268j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[jakelafortParticipant]

Idiocray is a fun movie that feels less and less far out.

I would invite Trump to be a special guest on new reality show: Are you smarter than a chimp? “Today we have a very special guest the former president of the USA and a self-described very stable genius.

https://bigthink.com/life/chimpanzees-beat-humans/

[RichRaelianParticipant]

Hello! Yes it is that is why paradism will replace it all over the world.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Paradism’ll cause a schism.

If ya wan da honey
ya need da money

[AutumnParticipant]

I often think the major selling point of the model of capitalist-public-hybrid, representative democracy we’re most familiar with is that it limits power between the government, private interest, and the public en masse. In the tenuous balance between mob rule, totalitarian regimes, and self-serving plutocracy it’s more difficult for any one force to completely override or ignore the others. However, given enough time, even that will likely erode.

I think, when we look at many attempts at communism, one of the major hurtles is that we struggle to ever reach an actual communist paradigm. We seem to frequently equate public ownership with state ownership (possibly because certain communist regimes were disingenuous, populist ploys to seize power from the get-go). With the state having less counterbalance, the step to totalitarianism may be shorter than the step to actual communism (a state of existence which may just be incompatible with human behaviour in large scale societies).

That said, I don’t think there is that much inherent value in democracy as a means of governance, especially representative democracies. It does little to ensure competent decision-making or adequate qualifications for decision-makers and is prone to all the usual corruptions. The actual ‘democratic’ component often pretty questionable as well. Which is not to suggest I want direct democracy, but how many contemporary democracies are poorly representative of the actual will of voters? Probably quite a few.

[_Robert_Participant]

It is interesting that communes or commune-like setups can work and have worked on a small-scale level. I guess you gotta have the right group of like-minded people. It just doesn’t scale up well.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

It is interesting that communes or commune-like setups can work and have worked on a small-scale level. I guess you gotta have the right group of like-minded people. It just doesn’t scale up well.

There are striking similarities between the morality of ancient small groups (open borders, free sharing, equality, autonomy) and that of liberals; and between the morality of large groups (closed borders, competition with other groups, hierarchies, authority) and that of conservatives.  In present-day small hunter-gatherer groups, all people get fed, even if they do not contribute, and the ethos is “to each according to their needs; from each according to their means”.  But these people really frown on stinginess and laziness: not contributing when one is able to.

If conservatives now value autonomy as well, in the form of libertarianism – perhaps this is a reaction to state authoritarianism.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Throughout history, Muslims like the “KJ Reports” team led by Kasim Javed and Ahmed Ajmi, have never overly pro-democratic. It just doesn’t work well with such a restrictive religion.

So, how religious are they? Where do they normally worship? Or are you just stereotyping on their Middle-Eastern names?

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

Throughout history, Muslims like the “KJ Reports” team led by Kasim Javed and Ahmed Ajmi, have never overly pro-democratic. It just doesn’t work well with such a restrictive religion.

So, how religious are they? Where do they normally worship? Or are you just stereotyping on their Middle-Eastern names?

Gee, maybe the anti-democratic videos and all the “how great are the Muslims” videos is a clue. I smell a rat. This is the problem with all these so called “influencers”. Could be the Saudi Kingdom funding them or it could be Iran. You can’t tell. Or maybe they are just a bunch of wonderful Middle Eastern guys out of London with a nebulous website putting out anti-democracy videos in English just to help us Americans see the light. Thanks guys !!!

[DavisModerator]

Throughout history, Muslims like the “KJ Reports” team led by Kasim Javed and Ahmed Ajmi, have never overly pro-democratic. It just doesn’t work well with such a restrictive religion.

This is Islamophobic. Democracy is as strong in Turkey, Azerbaijan and Albania as it is in Poland, Hungary or Northern Ireland. That is, it is not the particular religion that affects the democratic health, individual rights and level of eroding of power structures but religion period. It is as bad right now in Hungary as it is in Turkey. And I would say so is the same in some conservative southern US states. Not adapting to the development of humanist ideals, separation of church and state, respect for individuals and groups, equity, true representation and safeguarding against democratic erosion is the issue. ALL religions, when fully embraced, lead to this. There is no religion out there that is absolutely fully compatible with the above. Many Islamic countries are the way they are due to the slow adoption of humanist ideals (religion comes in here), the effects of colonialism and western interference. You will find the same in Christian countries such as in Western Africa, the Philippines, Paraguay and even in religion torn Northern Ireland. Islam is no more or less anti-democratic or menacing than Christianity is. It is the hold that that religion has over the state that makes the difference, and it does so to a lesser or greater extent over the world based on a country’s adoption of humanist principles which has a lot to do with historical interference, economic stability and even luck.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Davis wrote:

There is no religion out there that is absolutely fully compatible with the above.

Davis wrote:

It is the hold that that religion has over the state that makes the difference, and it does so to a lesser or greater extent over the world based on a country’s adoption of humanist principles […]

While some states have hold over religion.

In the contexts of Secular Democracy and Humanism, I think Authoritarianism is the main pathology, the most obvious example being China’s CCP (unless one can say that Communism is a religion). As for one particular religion being more suited for religious-powered authoritarianism than another, didn’t Mohammed have political purposes in mind for his newly invented religion? Sharia Law comes to mind. I could be wrong, I’m not really trying to argue that point, and I don’t mean to focus on it. Christian politics in USA is also a threat to freedom.

I choose to focus on religion only as it’s the most traditional and currently prevalent tool that empowers authoritarianist politics, while it’s not the only abusive tool. Waking people up to how religion is the largest scam and tool that empowers anti-humanist authoritarianism is a useful endeavor, while the ultimate goals include empowering people’s free thought, free speech, and other political choices, promoting government that is transparent and not self-serving, and promoting business that’s not just competing to win zero-sum games. Small scale religion, thought, and speech that doesn’t impose personal belief on others is not a major threat.

Meanwhile, isn’t any utopia a “fraud”, practically by definition? Also practically by definition, no idealism invented by humans can be expected to be perfect, incorruptible, or immune from scrutiny and adjustments. Perfection is the enemy of good, in religion and idealist governing. (LOL, and in utopian economic systems, in spite of the pleasures that the purest idealists are addicted to preaching.)

[_Robert_Participant]

Davis wrote:

Democracy is as strong in Turkey, Azerbaijan and Albania as it is in Poland, Hungary or Northern Ireland

Not saying much, the best against the worst there, my friend. From what I have read of Islamic scriptures and from history itself the two systems are incompatible, and government is inseparable from the religion by rule. BTW, I do detest the Islamic religion that enslaves the minds of millions, Allah willing, peace be upon him and if you do not, you may wanna turn in your liberal card because you got it all twisted up.

[_Robert_Participant]

I guess we are watching democracy die right here in this microcosm of a forum. The liberal side is extremely soft, prioritizing fucked-up human feelings over classical rights and conservatives are questioning the efficiency of democracy, so disgusted by “liberals” that they are wanting to destroy all the institutions in favor of the authoritarianism that fills the vacuum. It’s a global wave and there are plenty of bad actors ready to pounce and help democratic liberal nations self-destruct. Too old, fat, and stupid to survive. It’s a tragic comedy really.

[AutumnParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

I guess we are watching democracy die right here in this microcosm of a forum.

Probably not.

The liberal side is extremely soft, prioritizing fucked-up human feelings over classical rights and conservatives are questioning the efficiency of democracy, so disgusted by “liberals” that they are wanting to destroy all the institutions in favor of the authoritarianism that fills the vacuum. It’s a global wave and there are plenty of bad actors ready to pounce and help democratic liberal nations self-destruct. Too old, fat, and stupid to survive. It’s a tragic comedy really.

What does this actually mean?

Many of our democracies were formed in times when we viewed the world much differently. I think we’re stuck between people coming to terms with the fact that we may not be able to salvage our current institutions—or t least can’t maintain the status quo—and those that think we can’t give up what is the bedrock of our stability.

[Author]

Posts