Liberal Democracy

andyx1205 · **#21** by **andyx1205** » Apr 11, 2011 9:15 pm

914: "Okay, well, true, I suppose. Does that mean that Parti Socialiste and PvdA aren't "Left"? They're going to be very disappointed..."

It depends on the individual candidate I guess, I don't know much about those countries. They may very well consider themselves as the Left just as how Tony Blair considered himself a socialist. They seem like simply status quo social dems, not that there's anything wrong with that of course. Then again France as a whole is pretty left wing as it is, at least when it comes to social welfare.

Terms like left and centre and right aren't really helpful, different parties and candidates have different views. Unles
your Strontium Dog in which case every party affiliated with the Socialist International shares the same values.

NineOneFour · **#22** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 11, 2011 9:18 pm

andyx1205 wrote:914: "Okay, well, true, I suppose. Does that mean that Parti Socialiste and PvdA aren't "Left"? They're going to be very disappointed..."

It depends on the individual candidate I guess, I don't know much about those countries. They may very well consider themselves as the Left just as how Tony Blair considered himself a socialist. They seem like simply status quo social dems, not that there's anything wrong with that of course. Then again France as a whole is pretty left wing as it is, at least when it comes to social welfare.

Terms like left and centre and right aren't really helpful, different parties and candidates have different views. Unles
your Strontium Dog in which case every party affiliated with the Socialist International shares the same values.

Yes, apparently they are communistsocialistnaziprogressiveSaulAlinskys.

andyx1205 · **#23** by **andyx1205** » Apr 11, 2011 9:20 pm

Strontium: "That's all liberal democracy is: an open society with free, fair elections."

Yah it was pretty fair when Gore lost in 2000 and Attlee lost to Churchill despite having more of the popular vote. Quite free and fair is your liberal democracy eh.

It's been pretty open with wikileaks too eh? It's not fair nor open, it's simply a compromise, a compromise on democracy to keep the status quo.

NineOneFour · **#24** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 11, 2011 9:24 pm

andyx1205 wrote:Strontium: "That's all liberal democracy is: an open society with free, fair elections."

Yah it was pretty fair when Gore lost in 2000 and Attlee lost to Churchill despite having more of the popular vote. Quite free and fair is your liberal democracy eh.

It's been pretty open with wikileaks too eh? It's not fair nor open, it's simply a compromise, a compromise on democracy to keep the status quo.

Emmeline · **#25** by **Emmeline** » Apr 11, 2011 10:08 pm

andyx1205 wrote:Strontium: "That's all liberal democracy is: an open society with free, fair elections."

Yah it was pretty fair when Gore lost in 2000 and Attlee lost to Churchill despite having more of the popular vote. Quite free and fair is your liberal democracy eh.

It's been pretty open with wikileaks too eh? It's not fair nor open, it's simply a compromise, a compromise on democracy to keep the status quo.

I thought SD summed the term up exactly - that's what it means. You might cite occasions where it hasn't achieved what it's supposed to achieve but that doesn't alter its meaning does it?

Strontium Dog · **#26** by **Strontium Dog** » Apr 11, 2011 11:06 pm

NineOneFour and andyxnumbers seem content to alternate between making snide personal attacks on me and high fiving each other for it. I don't think knowledge or facts are particularly high on their agenda. Next time I'd advise them not to ask a question if neutral and dispassionate dictionary definitions are going to trigger this kind of circlejerkery.

andyx1205 · **#27** by **andyx1205** » Apr 11, 2011 11:46 pm

Start with a point that you want to address instead of accusing people of launching personal attacks on you.

In our great liberal democracies, did the people have a say in whether or not the state should intervene in Iraq? We don't live in a democracy, we simply are fed the illusion of our societies being democracies.

A democracy isn't simply majority rule, it's about participation in power, it's about the democratization of all aspects of society, where every human being has an equal amount of influence. As Rousseau puts it, an ideal society is where the government serves the people with having the function of carrying out the will of the people. Of course you need experts to run certain aspects of society, however such a compromise has to be justifiable.

For example, can corporate tax cuts and bankers' bonuses be justified? No.

Strontium Dog · **#28** by **Strontium Dog** » Apr 11, 2011 11:51 pm

I don't want to address any points. The thread asked what liberal democracy was, I posted a definition in good faith, and then I got tag-teamed because my dictionary definition didn't fit with yours and NineOneFour's pre-conceived ideas.

I would suggest that if the sole intention of asking a question is to reinforce your own prejudices so you can smugly pat each other on the back, asking it to people who may not agree with you is likely to cause you some consternation.

andyx1205 · **#29** by **andyx1205** » Apr 11, 2011 11:55 pm

You posted a definition, and I attacked that definition. It's as simple as that.

GT2211 · **#30** by **GT2211** » Apr 12, 2011 12:18 am

andyx1205 wrote:

For example, can corporate tax cuts and bankers' bonuses be justified? No.

The former? Yes. The latter....well....

GT2211 · **#31** by **GT2211** » Apr 12, 2011 12:30 am

rEvolutionist wrote:Yeah, i'm not even sure if it means socially liberal or economically liberal, or both? And if it means economically liberal, it depends on what exactly that means. If it means 'invisible hand of the market' bullshit, then I don't want anything to do with it. If it means 'free' more in the sense of being 'fare' then I'm in favour of that. What was Keynes considered?

Economically? Keynes was far more of a free marketer, capitalist than most liberals who parrot his name realize.

See this article by Bartlett

NineOneFour · **#32** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 12, 2011 1:30 am

andyx1205 wrote:Start with a point that you want to address instead of accusing people of launching personal attacks on you.

Precisement.

In our great liberal democracies, did the people have a say in whether or not the state should intervene in Iraq? We don't live in a democracy, we simply are fed the illusion of our societies being democracies.

A democracy isn't simply majority rule, it's about participation in power, it's about the democratization of all aspects of society, where every human being has an equal amount of influence. As Rousseau puts it, an ideal society is where the government serves the people with having the function of carrying out the will of the people. Of course you need experts to run certain aspects of society, however such a compromise has to be justifiable.

For example, can corporate tax cuts and bankers' bonuses be justified? No.

Excellent points.

NineOneFour · **#33** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 12, 2011 1:31 am

Strontium Dog wrote:I don't want to address any points. The thread asked what liberal democracy was, I posted a definition in good faith, and then I got tag-teamed because my dictionary definition didn't fit with yours and NineOneFour's pre-conceived ideas.

I would suggest that if the sole intention of asking a question is to reinforce your own prejudices so you can smugly pat each other on the back, asking it to people who may not agree with you is likely to cause you some consternation.

All you did was post a generic wikipedia definition. This did not address jack diddly shit in the OP, so it was a lame attempt at best. What did you expect from this, acclaim?

andyx1205 · **#34** by **andyx1205** » Apr 12, 2011 2:06 am

GT2211 wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:

For example, can corporate tax cuts and bankers' bonuses be justified? No.

The former? Yes. The latter....well....

Well for the former it really depends though in most cases it is not justifiable. That's the point of democracy, everything should be held accountable to the people. The state and its institutions should work for the benefit of the people.

Strontium Dog · **#35** by **Strontium Dog** » Apr 12, 2011 10:06 am

andyx1205 wrote:You posted a definition, and I attacked that definition. It's as simple as that.

If you have a problem with facts that's not my fault.

NineOneFour wrote:All you did was post a generic wikipedia definition. This did not address jack diddly shit in the OP

NineOneFour wrote:What, precisely is liberal democracy

Yes, the dictionary definition of liberal democracy didn't address a thing in the OP, did it? :crazy:

King Hazza · **#36** by **King Hazza** » Apr 12, 2011 10:30 am

Well by my definition "democracy" banks solely on how much a society allows the citizens to vote in matters of governance and to what degree (with direct democracy being at the very top- trickling way down to countries where citizens merely vote for their government, down further to countries where citizens only get to vote for minor representatives separate from the executive):
Liberalism seems to be the degree the society's laws and constitution protects individual rights* and freedoms;
These sometimes clash; and to be quite honest I'm having a hard time picking a single country that really successfully qualifies for both (or even either) these days.

*Problem is, many rights and freedoms directly reduce other rights and freedoms- making what is a 'right' a point of view;
For example, some people might consider the right to a trial by jury by one's peers when required to face criminal charges, as the most basic right of the convicted and an inalienable pillar of a liberal society.
Problem is, it required that 12 people had their basic rights violated by, essentially, conscripting them as jurors.
If society were to, alternatively, not forcefully recruit jurors and rely on either volunteers or simply a member of the judiciary to determine innocence or guilt- how would that measure in terms of liberalism instead.

I'll get back to the thread with more answers

NineOneFour · **#37** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 12, 2011 11:06 am

Strontium Dog wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:You posted a definition, and I attacked that definition. It's as simple as that.

If you have a problem with facts that's not my fault.

NineOneFour wrote:All you did was post a generic wikipedia definition. This did not address jack diddly shit in the OP

NineOneFour wrote:What, precisely is liberal democracy

Yes, the dictionary definition of liberal democracy didn't address a thing in the OP, did it?

Well, if you're incapable of answering the questions in the OP, just say so.

Strontium Dog · **#38** by **Strontium Dog** » Apr 12, 2011 11:22 am

What's the point? It's patently obvious that you've already made your mind up about liberal democracies. Like the far left iconoclasts you hero worship (Chomsky, Klein etc) you consider our democratic states to be plutarchies that are little better than the dictatorships we stand in opposition to. That's the way it seems anyway.

andyx1205 · **#39** by **andyx1205** » Apr 12, 2011 8:52 pm

Strontium: " you consider our democratic states to be plutarchies that are little better than the dictatorships we stand in opposition to. That's the way it seems anyway."

Now you're just making shit up.

Strontium Dog · **#40** by **Strontium Dog** » Apr 12, 2011 9:36 pm

No, I am stating things as I genuinely believe them to be. If that's not the case, then feel free to rebut it.

Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Re: Liberal Democracy

Who is online