A rather odd contention. The aim of democracy is that the people gain what the people say they desire – as Mencken said, good and hard. Civil liberty's aim might be freedom from fear, of the rule of law's, or a righteous society even, but not democracy, no.
— Tim Worstall (@worstall) May 2, 2021
Were he to consider the German referendum of 19 August 1934 he would see that freedom from fear is not a given result of democracy.
When he says Democratic it is implied to be part of ‘The Democratic People’s Republic of…’
Perhaps we’re just not afraid of the same things he is? Such as being challenged.
To be honest he said “democracy should”. There’s lots of people claiming democracy should produce all sorts of things. The people who use the phrase generally don’t much like democracy.
Democracy is merely the tyranny of the majority. It’s an awful system, but less awful than the alternatives.
@BiS – as you may deduce, I don’t much like it either. The results speak for themselves.
Democracy has one aim, to prevent the concentration of power where it can be used by one or a group to impose their will on all society – it matters not whether the group is a minority or majority. The Greeks had got fed up of tyrant kings.
Mencken was commenting on how democracy is perceived and applied rather than what it is in its pure sense.
What democracy nowadays does is concentrate that power, and the electorate engage in a bun-fight to see how much of other people’s property can be extorted and handed over to them. They are too stupid to realise that they get extorted too, and the only winners are the rent-seekers and their cronies in charge.
So Mencken was saying, serves them right.
To be pendantic, democracy doesn’t have an aim. It’s a system. People have aims. About as good as drunken dart players, most of the time.
Democracy should deliver (not ‘aim for’, ‘deliver’) freedom from fear. Some people seem to spend their lives afraid of the future. But what if those fears are groundless, such as ‘climate catastrophe’; or overblown, such as Covid? How can we protect against fears that exist only inside the heads of those experiencing them?
@ Chris Miller
Yes, but Murphy lives in a bubble of his own making where he thinks everyone should be brainwashed into “right thinking”.
It reminds me that my son used to, when a teenager, have a poster produced (in English) by the Czech government saying “Under Communism you could not buy laundry detergent but you could have your brain washed”
I’m actually surprised P³ hasn’t pre-emptively blocked our host..
Fear rom what?
A few my fears – High taxes, servitude to the NHS, rule by identity politics to start with.
of the rule of law’s
J, M & J + the wee donkey.
He and his fellow travellers will always be able to find someone “in fear” whenever they need to, and if they can’t they’ll invent one.
The point of democracy is to allow a change of government without bloodshed.
Of course if you wilfully toss away democracy’s legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate you reintroduce the risk of bloodshed. D’ye hear me, Crazy Joe?
J, M & J + the wee donkey.
Nice one, fella.
Did the wee donkey suck diesel and float up the Lagan in a bubble? Maybe the wee donkey is H?
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1387086676728688648
If he is right, isn’t that an incentive on any party or dictator to ensure the population was perpetually in fear. The party or dictator holds out as the only protector from the bogeyman.
This is straight from the dictator’s playbook, no?
Mother of God’s
Murph is halfway right. Security of the person is part of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s actually a refreshing change. In modern times the word democracy has been redefined by lefties to coincide with their programme. Here Spudnik is thinking of democracy in its ideal form. Plato thought that rule by the demos was the greatest possible evil, but then he was an elitist and not a very pleasant one at that.
@Chris Miller So rule has devolved from a king to a cabinet to a parliament. Perhaps future technology will allow us, the demos, to vote individually on every issue. But would we want to? Or would we delegate that to a class of professional deciders over matters of public concern, called politicians?