Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Is Democracy the Killer of Liberty?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Verđandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 12th, 2018 @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    Luxembourg Luxembourg
    Location
    Asgĺrd
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Two sisters
    Occupation
    Wyrd-weaver
    Posts
    1,716
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    306
    Thanked in
    196 Posts

    Is Democracy the Killer of Liberty?

    I repeat: Is democracy the killer of liberty? The dictionary defines democracy as the rule of the people. Even at its best, “democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest,” according to Winston Churchill.


    More...

  2. #2
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, August 6th, 2012 @ 07:12 AM
    Ethnicity
    German/Irish
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Computer CAD/ Civil
    Politics
    Libertarian/Conservative
    Posts
    1,771
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Not Sure!
    I have never lived in a true Democracy, but an Oligarchy evolving toward world Oligarchy and Police State. Maybe we should try Democracy for a change.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Waldstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 02:19 AM
    Status
    Brief Absence
    Ethnicity
    European
    Subrace
    Atlantid-Keltic Nordid
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Schaumburg-Lippe Schaumburg-Lippe
    Location
    Hammurabenstein
    Gender
    Posts
    643
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Just some - in my view - basic thoughts on this subject:

    It's important what kind of democracy we are talking about: A democracy consisting of men free and equal in all respects, respectively with enough common ground, who are not too different regarding education, ancestry and overall faculties, is a true guarantor of liberty and as necessary and vital to it as, vice versa, liberty in the true sense of the word ( i.e. a liberty not abusing the rights emanating from itself and not transgressing its natural boundaries), especially liberty of speech, is conditio sine qua non of every true democracy.

    On the other hand, a group too heterogenous cannot build a democracy, but only an ochlocracy, a form of government where the plebs rules. Actually, it's not the plebs that has the power in this case, but often a dictator or a group of people able to instrumentalize the base instincts of the masses. This is in my view a main argument against too much racial diffusion.

    It is true however, that liberty and - as the core idea behind democracy - equality are always in one or the other kind of conflict with one another. The balance between the two has to be defined and re-defined in a constant, never ending process.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Stygian Cellarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 12th, 2012 @ 04:59 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    England, Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Wales
    Subrace
    Sindarin
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Maryland Maryland
    Location
    Nargothrond
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Ontological Cryptanalyst
    Politics
    1011000
    Religion
    Spiritual Agnosticism
    Posts
    218
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    I am not such a big fan of Democracy. In my opinion, any government where two fools can out-vote a genius is doomed to degenerate.

    Any form of government that requires its leadership to be of a profession, in which telling the truth is fatal to their career. When falsehoods, omitting truth and deception are the most efficient means to excel. A profession that demands this prerequisite of character, which excludes them from the highest strata of moral development, is undesirable to say the least.

    The two occupations that require that defect of character are Lawyer and Politician. Obama and Edwards are both.
    yDNA: R1a1a1
    mtDNA: H4a1
    Ancestry Painting: 100% European
    23andme Global Similarity: Dead center of English Cluster

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Waldstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 02:19 AM
    Status
    Brief Absence
    Ethnicity
    European
    Subrace
    Atlantid-Keltic Nordid
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Schaumburg-Lippe Schaumburg-Lippe
    Location
    Hammurabenstein
    Gender
    Posts
    643
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by infratetraskelion View Post
    I am not such a big fan of Democracy. In my opinion, any government where two fools can out-vote a genius is doomed to degenerate.
    "Genius" is in my view a category mainly regarding ability, especially intellectual ability, but no moral category. However, democracy mainly deals with decisions of moral nature. Thus, two or more fools sharing the same opinion and in such a way out-voting the genius can still have morality on their side, in particular taking into account that geniuses often tend toward excessive behavior of some kind. It is better to have some checks and balances here: Geniuses are important motors of progress but often would not be willing to brake when facing the abyss.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Stygian Cellarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 12th, 2012 @ 04:59 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    England, Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Wales
    Subrace
    Sindarin
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Maryland Maryland
    Location
    Nargothrond
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Ontological Cryptanalyst
    Politics
    1011000
    Religion
    Spiritual Agnosticism
    Posts
    218
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by HamilkarBarkas View Post
    "Genius" is in my view a category mainly regarding ability, especially intellectual ability, but no moral category. However, democracy mainly deals with decisions of moral nature. Thus, two or more fools sharing the same opinion and in such a way out-voting the genius can still have morality on their side, in particular taking into account that geniuses often tend toward excessive behavior of some kind. It is better to have some checks and balances here: Geniuses are important motors of progress but often would not be willing to brake when facing the abyss.
    I would agree with Genius being a category of intellectual ability. My point being that I believe the decisions made in society, require choices made beyond the ability of common man. They require acute and accurate foresight and knowledge of world dynamics. Topics such as foreign policy, economics, budget management, etc. All topics of grave importance to a Nation that common man troubles his mind little with, indeed beyond the scope of his interest. He also seems to lack exceptional ability in judgment of character and cannot readily identify when he is being swindled. The consequences of which is evident in the world today. Also, I don't think checks and balances would be accurate within the context of Democracy because those of less intelligence out number those of higher intelligence by a great margin.

    Even though genius is not a moral classification, I do not believe it less likely a genius be moral, I think it more likely, their accelerated development to wisdom via processing greater quantity of information during experience, indeed seeking experience, increases the probability they will arrive at wisdom before their lesser intellectual counterparts. Wisdom itself containing a higher strata of moral development. Though when I take genius into consideration, he is in a category all his own, not to be grouped within the top mass of those of higher intelligence. Perhaps those of just above average intelligence have largely a selfish character and wouldn't qualify as any more moral than common man.

    At least we can agree that the higher ones intelligence, the greater decision making ability they possess. Moral or not. If we can just isolate those of moral constitution than we could have something very good. Common man cannot be left to pick these Men and Women for sure.

    A system of highly educated, intelligent, noble, aristocrats devoted to the common good is the most ideal in my opinion. I believe a system can be developed which has safeguards against the degeneration of commitment and morality amongst the aristocratic overlords. Selfishness of character must be avoided at all costs.
    yDNA: R1a1a1
    mtDNA: H4a1
    Ancestry Painting: 100% European
    23andme Global Similarity: Dead center of English Cluster

  7. #7
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, February 20th, 2017 @ 11:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    526
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    The problem with geniuses and other (highly) intellectual/intelligent people is that they tend to be more cosmopolitan and susceptible to all kinds of ideologies. Their general high mental ability makes them seek out (and lets them adapt more easily to) new situations - such as a multicultural environment. And they think more abstractly, which makes them lose sight of concrete, local cultures & traditions more easily. However, you do want to have intelligent people in charge, naturally.

    I think it might be better to reserve the right to vote (and be voted) to people who have families. This would eliminate the problem that many people vote too much with a focus on the momentary, in stead of the traditional and permanent. It would strengthen the will to invest in a family. It would also keep the cosmopolitans in check, since these are notorious for their divorce rates - and are probably less likely to start a family in the first place. And it would keep those who can generally manage very little out of the sphere of political influence.

    I think that you would end up with better and more rooted & involved politicians & policies. There would be less impetus for immigration for instance, because - and I recall this from an article which I can't find right away - immigration is mostly favoured by young & single people.

    This system of sib rule would also better reflect the ancient Germanic forms of democracy. Keep in mind that democracy doesn't necessarily mean the rule of every individual. Only that of the people at large.

    Also, I'm contemplating the possibility of instating some kind of cleverly devised initiation ritual for politicians that ensures that they will work in the interest of their people, and not in their personal, petty interest. It would have to be a ritual - or test - that requires as little bureaucracy as possible. A display of general knowledge of ethnic heritage would be a good start.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Stygian Cellarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 12th, 2012 @ 04:59 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    England, Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Wales
    Subrace
    Sindarin
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Maryland Maryland
    Location
    Nargothrond
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Ontological Cryptanalyst
    Politics
    1011000
    Religion
    Spiritual Agnosticism
    Posts
    218
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    The problem with geniuses and other (highly) intellectual/intelligent people is that they tend to be more cosmopolitan and susceptible to all kinds of ideologies. Their general high mental ability makes them seek out (and lets them adapt more easily to) new situations - such as a multicultural environment. And they think more abstractly, which makes them lose sight of concrete, local cultures & traditions more easily. However, you do want to have intelligent people in charge, naturally.
    The description you present, in my opinion, is more indicative of the highly educated, average/slightly above average intellectual demographic created in the greater part of the 20th century. The pseudo-intellectual types that fill academia and of cosmopolitan character. These are the ones filling the Liberal ranks and causing harm to our civilizations; naive marionettes of multiculturalist agenda. I make a great distinction between them and those of true intelligence.

    I once wrote an article about the parallels of the uneducated and the ultra-intelligent in contrast to these people, as a result of this group being taught out of naturally understood truths, instincts and common sense; the products of indoctrination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    I think it might be better to reserve the right to vote (and be voted) to people who have families. This would eliminate the problem that many people vote too much with a focus on the momentary, in stead of the traditional and permanent. It would strengthen the will to invest in a family. It would also keep the cosmopolitans in check, since these are notorious for their divorce rates - and are probably less likely to start a family in the first place. And it would keep those who can generally manage very little out of the sphere of political influence.

    I think that you would end up with better and more rooted & involved politicians & policies. There would be less impetus for immigration for instance, because - and I recall this from an article which I can't find right away - immigration is mostly favoured by young & single people.
    This is definitely a progressive idea and one I would support. Limiting the influence of a demographic that has no profound understanding from the perspective of: what kind of world do I want my children to inherit? And who's ability of foresight is in service of personal, self-serving gain, would be a step forward for sure. I agree with all of your above, indeed encouraging a family is most desirable as well.

    Also, no doubt immigration is more favorable to this demographic. The young, impressionable, naive and selfish cannot fully grasp its consequences. To them it is just an abstract idea, it has no Bering in reality. That combined with humanitarian indoctrination is a way for them to take the path of least resistance into being a "good Samaritan", by merely speaking the words in favor of it. Because to them, it only exists as words. That's one of the important things about the psychological initiation into parenthood, Bering in reality strengthens many a fold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    This system of sib rule would also better reflect the ancient Germanic forms of democracy. Keep in mind that democracy doesn't necessarily mean the rule of every individual. Only that of the people at large.
    I just want to add that: there is a significant difference in racial demographics in America than Europe. Many of these ideas would work better than the current model within a genetic European context, but would ultimately fail where non-European populations approximate the European in number. Ideas such as familial voting rights etc. would have mitigated positive effect with a large Negro, Mestizo and 3rd world population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlef View Post
    Also, I'm contemplating the possibility of instating some kind of cleverly devised initiation ritual for politicians that ensures that they will work in the interest of their people, and not in their personal, petty interest. It would have to be a ritual - or test - that requires as little bureaucracy as possible. A display of general knowledge of ethnic heritage would be a good start.
    Funny you are doing that because I myself have been ruminating on the idea. I've been trying to figure out a system which makes it virtually impossible for someone responsible for the welfare of citizens to be anything other than Noble, altruistic, far-sighted, and passionately committed to the service of the people. Some kind of initiation ritual akin to ancient mysteries is something I've been considering. In appearance it would be different, but the results and function would be similar.
    yDNA: R1a1a1
    mtDNA: H4a1
    Ancestry Painting: 100% European
    23andme Global Similarity: Dead center of English Cluster

  9. #9
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, March 23rd, 2018 @ 11:20 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celtic-Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    437
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    I believe a form of 'limited democracy' where people have to earn the right to vote by contributing to the country would be the best form of governance.
    How could they earn the right to vote? By working as a civil servant or by some other form of contribution to the country.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 27th, 2020 @ 10:02 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,919
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    A major problem with our current democratic system as I see it is the way that voters only get to choose inbetween different parties but don't get to have their say on specific issues. Why should you as a voter be forced to "take the good with the bad"? If I want the economical policies of a particular party but not their social policies, why should I not be able to use my vote to distinguish between the two, and inbetween specific issues altogether, and thus ensure the greatest level of influence possible over my own vote and democratic choice? A sort of referendum-democracy if you will.

    There should be some sort of ballot system where voters can vote on the specific policy changes proposed by the different parties and not just on the party itself. The party must in turn present each change that they propose to make on the ballot sheet and let the voters decide. If they don't get a big enough majority for a specific policy change, then they do not get a mandate for implementing that particular policy. If not enough voters participate in voting on that policy, for or against it, then the vote is made void and no change is implemented. This way radicals wouldn't be able to fly their radicalism under the radar while they get their votes on monetary issues.

    Had this system been in place back when our democracies were young I am confident that our societies would have looked alot different today. The leftist radicals would never have had enough votes to implement their radical social agenda and would have had to settle for economical reforms which was the only real mandate that was given to them by their voters. Under this system, a literacy test would also be needed to weed out unfit individuals from voting.

    Then there is the issue of "majority rule". A majority to me is not 51% but more in the area of 75%-80% (three fourths or four fifths of the votes). Policy changes which half the country supports and half the country rejects should not take effect.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. End of Liberty
    By Blackened_Might in forum The United States
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 08:42 PM
  2. Weaver of Liberty
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007, 12:53 PM
  3. Life, Liberty, and ...
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 12:44 AM
  4. Life, Liberty, and ...
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, December 30th, 2006, 12:36 PM
  5. If you don't come to democracy, democracy will come to you!
    By Tryggvi in forum Visual Arts & Aesthetics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sunday, July 23rd, 2006, 02:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •