281–290 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No violence when one Castro passed power to the other nor when Maduro continued Chavez. Democracy means nothing. Republic means everything.
Neither change was prompted by the citizenry, which really is the unstated core of Popper's definition (which has other problems, eh, but is a decent start).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the actual ideals having more to do with post-renaissance secularism // Could you go in to that a little, a few examples maybe of the main non-Christian ideals that underpin the founding of Europe.
Some pointers to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment the central doctrines [..] were individual liberty and religious tolerance in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church [..] along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A... The ideals of the French Revolution eventually beca…
The ideals of the French Revolution eventually became
the underpinnings of both the US Constitution and the
European and UN Declarations of Human Rights.
What coup? This is looking more like the entire event was staged as a pretext for a complete takeover, similar to the Reichstag fire of 1930s Germany.
And it is not a unique event, perhaps just the most widely known. To my mind (having grown up in the Soviet Union), immediate historical references are the murder of Kirov, the murder of Uritsky, both followed by powerful persecution of the "unwanted elements" of the society. (I am sure everyone will recall something similar, either from the history of their nation, or from a textbook or a classical reference).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This jumping from 'its a law' to "the government will kill you" is sophomoric. Its repeated on HN from time to time. Laws are to inform, and to help folks conform to expectations, and yes sometimes result in somebody being fined or even incarcerated. Its not all about killing everybody. I suppose all food is death too! Because everybody who eats, dies. Such claptrap was fun to talk about in college; lets get past thi…
> This jumping Not sure where you perceive this jump as having occurred. My point is just that force is a part of any government, arguably a necessary part, which is why fledgling governments often focus on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Democracy has been restored in plenty of countries previously ruled by authoritarians without recourse to the military. Would a military coup in China be the opposite of democracy? Then what do they have now? A different opposite of democracy? I think you wanna paint a black and white pic of the subject but that is impossible
Yes! A military coup in China would not be democratic. How complicated is this to understand? A military coup implies government by a military junta.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am very much against the thing you describe, whether they call themselves supreme courts or guardian councils or defenders of the constitution. Yes, I am a radical democrat. I think the safeguards supposedly provided by such institutions are largely illusionary. All sorts of minorities, for instance, may be protected in flowery words, but it isn't worth the paper it's written on unless the majority (of power, sadly…
> All sorts of minorities, for instance, may be protected in flowery words, but it isn't worth the paper it's written on unless the majority (of power, sadly, not of individuals) actually care about it. A constitutional safeguard that doesn't have the support of actual power is worked around, it's just a question of lawyer rhetoric. In the end, the only check that can exist on us is ourselves. Flowery words are actua…
Minority rule has all the problems of majority rule, and then some.
Yes, once in a blue moon the guardian councils of the world may be right when public opinion is wrong. But it seems to me ten times as often, it's the other way around.
And even then, you must remember that public opinion is far from democratic. Some people have far more power to make themselves heard, influence how people see things, etc. I'm for majorities of people, not majorities of power-shareholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Karl Popper considered a government democratic if it could be replaced without violence, and while that's not exactly my definition, I think it's a good start - a bare minimum. A provision in the constitution for military coups doesn't excuse it. That just means the Turkish constitution is a bad one, that doesn't offer its citizens democracy. Handing over control to the people "once the situation is stable again" is…
This is going to be controversial, but where is the proof that "democracy" is the biggest value to be pursued? In my opinion democracy is only a tool, not goal. And I think sometimes (Kemalist Turkey is one example) it's better for a society to not implement "pure" democracy in the name of better values like secularism, freedom etc. UK/Brexit is also a good example of majority of people being stupid and hurting thems…
That said, I do think you're awfully quick to assert that people don't know what's best for them (re. Brexit)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And was those genuine changes of government, you think? Or just a new face on the same old one? Anyway, that's one way Popper's definition is insufficient. Democracy is not just about whether a government can be replaced, but about how different the government we replace it with can actually be. Replacing a government isn't worth much if what you can replace it with is functionally identical in every way.
For the screwed up constitution that Castro established it was perfectly genuine and legal. You have to remember that everything that was done in Nazi Germany was legal. Being legal or coming from the State is orthogonal (means nothing) to being moral.
If not, then I still call these countries non-democratic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
? Most western governments hand over peacefully after elections.
That is exactly the point. Holding elections, even peaceful, transparent elections, is not the same thing as "replacing the government." Most government employees and non-employees who heavily influence policy are not elected and can't be replaced through elections.
Though I agree that Popper doesn't focus enough on degrees of change or feasibility of change (if the only parties essentially agree on everything, is government really replaced?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is going to be controversial, but where is the proof that "democracy" is the biggest value to be pursued? In my opinion democracy is only a tool, not goal. And I think sometimes (Kemalist Turkey is one example) it's better for a society to not implement "pure" democracy in the name of better values like secularism, freedom etc. UK/Brexit is also a good example of majority of people being stupid and hurting thems…
You don't "prove" a value. You just value a value. I value political equality, that everyone should have equal power to influence collective decisions that affect them. It's not a question delivering outcomes, or even of facts. That said, I do think you're awfully quick to assert that people don't know what's best for them (re. Brexit)