Democracy is the worst form of government...

[stevevw]

It's not really hard to say there is no objective morality. All moral systems have some subjective component. An objective morality would have to be baked into the fabric of the universe, would it not? If God is the moral law giver, then it is *God's* subjective choice of what is moral. If there is an objective morality, then God would be subject to it as well, rather than its author. (If God bakes morality into the Universe, it is still his choice.)

Its interesting that you say an "objective morality would have to be baked into the fabric of the universe". This implies that morality should be evidenced by physical reality and can be tested through science. I think this is categorically wrong as morality cannot be reduced to material reality alone.

God being the moral law giver does not mean he is subject to that moral law. If God is the creator of the universe then he is beyond space and time so is not subject to a material reality he created. Rather the moral law is a reflection of who God is. It comes naturally from Gods nature.

But we can see this reflected in nature indirectly in material reality. If God created the laws of nature and it is His nature then the moral law should be in harmony with material reality. So morality is measure not by science but by our lived experience, the reality of lived morality. That is exactly what we see.

I thought it was obvious. I even used a well known phrase from your book. If they prohibit worship/belief. ~~~The dreded **STATE ATHEISM** ~~~

And that is what the State does in some cases at the moment and I think will gradually become more widespread and dictated. For example as Christian beliefs and morals conflict with the States beliefs on particular issues it will be Christianity or any belief that contradeeicts this that will be surpressed and even banned in the public square.

This may not be banning the entire religion or belief but its a stepping stone to do so. When you ban beliefs about specific issues you are takling steps to ban the belief as a whole.

That's not what I meant and I don't care what is up in Canada.

Well first what happens in Canada is relevant to us as it reflects the same ideological thinking as the rest of the West but only that canada is prgressed further along in actually making laws to enforce the ideological beliefs. Remembering that ideological belief is a metaphysical position based on an assumption about how to order society.

No, not what I said. See above.

Ok I am not sure what you mean then. You said the State is not declaring its a god that can have no other gods before it. I said you don't have to declare this specific statement to act like a god who has no other gods before it. I gave a couple of examples of how this is happening today. Is this reality about what is said or what is actually being lived out.

Most law is quite dry and bureaucratic. Even things that seem to have a "moral basis" such is lost in the text of them. No one is saying people don't make laws because the represent popular moral opinions. No one at all.

OK as I thought you said "The law is not morality, it is law" implying there are no morals involved. But if some laws are underpinned by morals then surely there is also a moral law being applied. Now most moral laws are universially agreed like against murder, rape and stealing. But there are others that are social norms like 'Don't sleep with your neigbours wife'. But I think the State can show their moral hand by implementing laws that either support this moral or not indirectly. Like easy divorce laws.

I think I already made any relevant answer. Let's not get twisted up in the various political positions. They are just a distraction to the topic of democracy.

But the various political positions are most relevant to democracy as a system at least in todays political climate. I think decades ago maybe even 20 years ago there was mainly 2 parties whose position though leaning to the Left or Right (socialism as opposed to capitalism & neoliberalism) for economic reasons where fairly similar morally. So opposing parties gaining power did not have much to say about societal ethics but rather economics.

But its only been in recent years where there has been a shift into Identity politics and the Stae has steppede more into the moral realm with law and policy. So the question is 'Did Democracy create this situation by accommodating identity politics or have we now moved from Democracy to a new political system of Identity politics'. I am not sure Democracy should allow the State to be so involved and controlling of our personal and private lives and make laws accordingly. Perhaps this is over reach in a Democratic society.

Because that's how democracy works. The people collectively agree to select leaders and decide things by majority rule and lay down some protections from a majority faction using that power to oppress others and the voila - democracy. Its not to hard to comprehend, it just takes some effort to keep it functions. (And I am NOT going to discuss moral truth with you on this thread. Period. Full Stop.)

Ok I am trying not to talk about morals but its harde to detach the two. Nevertheless if we use policy and law I think the same arguement can be made as people can be divided by laws and policies.

I think your summation of Democracy is unreal in todays climate. You say its designed for majority rule and yet we see minority parties and groups dictating policy and law. Often majort parties are reliant on the minor parties for balance of power. So they have to compromise their position to accommodate. We see this with the Greens and environmentalism dictating things.

We see this with family policies and Rights and identity based politics where a minority can influence policy which the majority disagree with. Even disagreeing from within the same party who have implemented those policies.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its interesting that you say an "objective morality would have to be baked into the fabric of the universe". This implies that morality should be evidenced by physical reality and can be tested through science. I think this is categorically wrong as morality cannot be reduced to material reality alone.

God being the moral law giver does not mean he is subject to that moral law. If God is the creator of the universe then he is beyond space and time so is not subject to a material reality he created. Rather the moral law is a reflection of who God is. It comes naturally from Gods nature.

But we can see this reflected in nature indirectly in material reality. If God created the laws of nature and it is His nature then the moral law should be in harmony with material reality. So morality is measure not by science but by our lived experience, the reality of lived morality. That is exactly what we see.

I said "(And I am NOT going to discuss moral truth with you on this thread. Period. Full Stop.)" and I mean it.

And that is what the State does in some cases at the moment and I think will gradually become more widespread and dictated. For example as Christian beliefs and morals conflict with the States beliefs on particular issues it will be Christianity or any belief that contradeeicts this that will be surpressed and even banned in the public square.

This may not be banning the entire religion or belief but its a stepping stone to do so. When you ban beliefs about specific issues you are takling steps to ban the belief as a whole.

Well first what happens in Canada is relevant to us as it reflects the same ideological thinking as the rest of the West but only that canada is prgressed further along in actually making laws to enforce the ideological beliefs. Remembering that ideological belief is a metaphysical position based on an assumption about how to order society.

All I see is paranoia that the government, reflecting the majority of society, has forwards/supports a position different than some religion as a sign that religion itself will be suppressed. It is a completely overblown. It would probably be less stressful to those religions if they were willing to accept that others have different lives and just let it be instead of trying to impose their dogma on non-adherents. It is one of the things that is stressing democratic governments. (The back reactions from religion, not the evolution of society.)

Ok I am not sure what you mean then. You said the State is not declaring its a god that can have no other gods before it. I said you don't have to declare this specific statement to act like a god who has no other gods before it. I gave a couple of examples of how this is happening today. Is this reality about what is said or what is actually being lived out.

The state isn't a god and it isn't declaring itself such. A proper secular state isn't in the religion game so it doesn't encroach on the space of religion. (Even now, the US does pretty good on this aspect, though as has always been the case, we have a few intrusions fo religion in to government feeding back onto the general population.)

OK as I thought you said "The law is not morality, it is law" implying there are no morals involved. But if some laws are underpinned by morals then surely there is also a moral law being applied. Now most moral laws are universially agreed like against murder, rape and stealing. But there are others that are social norms like 'Don't sleep with your neigbours wife'. But I think the State can show their moral hand by implementing laws that either support this moral or not indirectly. Like easy divorce laws.

It's not the state's business. It is between me, my neighbor, and her wife. If they want a divorce because of that, then the state shouldn't impeded it. I spent at least a decade listening to priests rail against legal divorce and chastising parishioners that had divorced. I find it rather distasteful.

But the various political positions are most relevant to democracy as a system at least in todays political climate. I think decades ago maybe even 20 years ago there was mainly 2 parties whose position though leaning to the Left or Right (socialism as opposed to capitalism & neoliberalism) for economic reasons where fairly similar morally. So opposing parties gaining power did not have much to say about societal ethics but rather economics.

But its only been in recent years where there has been a shift into Identity politics and the Stae has steppede more into the moral realm with law and policy. So the question is 'Did Democracy create this situation by accommodating identity politics or have we now moved from Democracy to a new political system of Identity politics'. I am not sure Democracy should allow the State to be so involved and controlling of our personal and private lives and make laws accordingly. Perhaps this is over reach in a Democratic society.

Ok I am trying not to talk about morals but its harde to detach the two. Nevertheless if we use policy and law I think the same arguement can be made as people can be divided by laws and policies.

Nah. It looks like you can't let go of a "moral view" of everything. It's rather tiring.

I think your summation of Democracy is unreal in todays climate.

O, really? Do tell.

You say its designed for majority rule and yet we see minority parties and groups dictating policy and law.

I said the majority elects the government. It's basic civics for pre-teens.

Often majort parties are reliant on the minor parties for balance of power.

So, how is this a problem? (But not in my country. No minor party has a single seat in the national legislature and almost none in the sub-national.)

So they have to compromise their position to accommodate.

Compromise is not only the lubricant of society, but especially democracy. A refusal to compromse by the ruling faction is always part of non-democracy.

We see this with the Greens and environmentalism dictating things.

Not happening here, so I don't know your reference point.

We see this with family policies and Rights and identity based politics where a minority can influence policy which the majority disagree with. Even disagreeing from within the same party who have implemented those policies.

Yet another example where perfectly normal aspects of democratic politics is somehow a problem. (Is it because you don't like what it results in and you want it to stop? Does it make you want to end democracy because democracy doesn't do what you want? I'm getting that vibe from you Steve. I hope I am wrong.)

 

[o_mlly]

We make moral decisions all the time. But I agree with you in that I'd prefer the government not to involve itself in every aspect of my life. There's an overlap between what is immoral and what is illegal. But we don't legislate immorality in itself. And I'm sure we could find areas where there's be disagreement, but that's not the purpose of the thread.


Defence is a given (in fact, some people think that's the only function a government should take on). But is where we draw the line relevant to the system we employ to elect the government? I'd say that being informed about what someone would want to do if elected is actually part of the process. It certainly is at the moment. And I think that has to stay whatever else might change.

Presuming a federal democratic republic form of government:

I'm sure we could find areas where there's be disagreement, but that's not the purpose of the thread.
But is not resolving differences a fundamental purpose of government? A constitution and a judiciary exist to peacefully resolve differences as opposed to having duels at 10 paces at dawn.

... being informed about what someone would want to do if elected
Yes, I agree. Communication involves a sender and a receiver. An electorate that is uninformed, willfully or otherwise, ought not be entitled to vote.

... where we draw the line relevant to the system we employ to elect the government?
Imagine how things might change if the right to vote were restricted to only those who in total contribute to the commonwealth. Those who at any time take more from the commonwealth than contribute are denied the right to vote. That is not to say that those who are dependent are denied their current benefits. However, politicians seeking office by "buying" votes from those dependent on government with promises of polices that sustain that dependency would change their election strategies. I'd like to hear those new appeals; appeals made to net contributors rather than dependents.

 

[stevevw]

I said "(And I am NOT going to discuss moral truth with you on this thread. Period. Full Stop.)" and I mean it.

Yeah sorry about that I think this one was before I read your comment on the other post. I will reply to the rest later without the morality lol.

 

[Whyayeman]

But is not resolving differences a fundamental purpose of government?

I don't think so. Democratically elected governments have the authority and the duty to enact the policies they were elected on. It is their election which settles the differences - at least for their time in office.

 

[o_mlly]

I don't think so. Democratically elected governments have the authority and the duty to enact the policies they were elected on. It is their election which settles the differences - at least for their time in office.

Fair enough. Larger disagreements are legislatively decided. Still the major point obtains: among a largely diverse electorate, governments exist to resolve disagreements . The OP would prefer to eliminate moral disagreements. However, there are very few such amoral disagreements. Which side of the public road one must drive their car is an amoral decision. Establishing some licensing requirements for the population that may drive on that public road is not.

 

[Whyayeman]

Fair enough. Larger disagreements are legislatively decided. Still the major point obtains: among a largely diverse electorate, governments exist to resolve disagreements . The OP would prefer to eliminate moral disagreements. However, there are very few such amoral disagreements. Which side of the public road one must drive their car is an amoral decision. Establishing some licensing requirements for the population that may drive on that public road is not.

 

[Whyayeman]

Still the major point obtains: among a largely diverse electorate, governments exist to resolve disagreements .

No. Legislation is not to settle disagreements. The opponents of government need not be appeased. They rarely are. In a democratic country they can - and do - continue to oppose. Most elected legislatures (actually all that I can think of) allow for this by admitting opposition parties and individuals to criticise government.

However, there are very few such amoral disagreements.

Hardly any, I agree. In nearly every democratic state there is a broadly shared moral sense, so it is mostly irrelevant to arguments about policy.

 

[Bradskii]

Imagine how things might change if the right to vote were restricted to only those who in total contribute to the commonwealth. Those who at any time take more from the commonwealth than contribute are denied the right to vote. That is not to say that those who are dependent are denied their current benefits. However, politicians seeking office by "buying" votes from those dependent on government with promises of polices that sustain that dependency would change their election strategies. I'd like to hear those new appeals; appeals made to net contributors rather than dependents.

Well, that's one way to maintain an inequality of wealth I guess.

 

[Bradskii]

The OP would prefer to eliminate moral disagreements.

Because the op doesn't consider that the government has any right dictating morality. But if you think that licensing drivers is a moral matter then maybe we just have different conceptions of what actually constitutes morality.

 

[stevevw]

All I see is paranoia that the government, reflecting the majority of society, has forwards/supports a position different than some religion as a sign that religion itself will be suppressed. It is a completely overblown.

The question is does Christian beliefs and values conflict with the State and other agents representing the State beliefs and values. It seems that you believe the State cannot fall into a form of Totalitarism. What do you think would happen if a member stood up in parliament or a polititian expressed their view about homosexuality or SSM in the public forum.

Look at Jordan Peterson. If the State goes after a non Christian professional who expresses their belief then they are certainly going to go after a Christian who doews the same and in the same position. They are more or less saying you cannot express your belief if it opposes the status quo the State has determined as correct.

It would probably be less stressful to those religions if they were willing to accept that others have different lives and just let it be instead of trying to impose their dogma on non-adherents. It is one of the things that is stressing democratic governments. (The back reactions from religion, not the evolution of society.)

Christians already do and have done for decades. We learnt that long ago as Christian beliefs on marriage and family law, abortion and a host of other anti Christian laws and policies. Do you think the laws and policies that replaced the Christian ones were opposing Christianity. Or were they completely neutral.

The state isn't a god and it isn't declaring itself such. A proper secular state isn't in the religion game so it doesn't encroach on the space of religion. (Even now, the US does pretty good on this aspect, though as has always been the case, we have a few intrusions fo religion in to government feeding back onto the general population.)

It's not the state's business. It is between me, my neighbor, and her wife. If they want a divorce because of that, then the state shouldn't impeded it. I spent at least a decade listening to priests rail against legal divorce and chastising parishioners that had divorced. I find it rather distasteful.

OK so you don't think any of the laws and policies that the government has implemented are not anti-Christian. If Christians believe that abortion is wrong wouldn't the fact that the State law that allows abortion be an anti Christian position to take for example.

Nah. It looks like you can't let go of a "moral view" of everything. It's rather tiring.

So your saying laws and policies are moral. I am talking about whether the government has stepped into peoples private lives with their laws and policies which is politics. Whether the State is infringing our private lives, breaching our Rights to freedom is very relevant to this thread as it is anti democractic to deny peoples freedom.

O, really? Do tell.

I said the majority elects the government. It's basic civics for pre-teens.

But it doesn't work that way in many nations. Sometimes the party that gets into power can have less votes but get over the line with preferences from minority parties. So the mninority parties can force labor to implement policies that labor voters may disagree with which then puts a minority in the position of power over the majority.

This happens especially with the Green and environmental minority parties. But can also happen with independents where a handful of people can dictate policies that the majority disagree with because the major party has to compromise their policies to accommodate minorities that hold the balance of power.

Then there there are the Lobbyist, Unionist and big Corps who can dictate law and policy because the major parties are dependent on them to win elections. They more or less buy the policies they want through either financial support or through associations. For example The Workers union usually aligns with Labor who are socialists or big corps are tied to Conservatives who are pro private enterprise. Then there are the individual lobbyist and organisations who side with parties or lobby parties in exchange for promoting their agendas.

So, how is this a problem? (But not in my country. No minor party has a single seat in the national legislature and almost none in the sub-national.)

Ok well in Britain and Australia minor parties can have a lot of influence even when the majority did not vote for them. This has forced radical ideas from minor parties onto the majority of people. I think Canada may be the same as well as a few European nations. As a result Democracy has decreased in most nations.

But its interesting with the US. I know that when Trump got in it seemed the majority of people were unhappy. Maybe thats how it came across as many seemed devasted. Not just that it seems not too long after a government gets in power people are calling for them to go. It seems they don't get what they voted for. The parties make promises and then break them or bring in policies they did not tell the people about. In other words they misrepresented the people and the majority didn't get what they wanted.

Compromise is not only the lubricant of society, but especially democracy. A refusal to compromse by the ruling faction is always part of non-democracy.

The problem is the compromise is usually not what the majority wanted.

Not happening here, so I don't know your reference point.

So the environmentalist or other parties like the Gun party don't have any influence.

Yet another example where perfectly normal aspects of democratic politics is somehow a problem. (Is it because you don't like what it results in and you want it to stop? Does it make you want to end democracy because democracy doesn't do what you want? I'm getting that vibe from you Steve. I hope I am wrong.)

No I like democracy. I am saying its failing and that so called democractic nations are less democractic and becoming more controlling. I thought that was obvious. Why would I be criticising the current lack of democracy by governments in taking our freedoms.

 

[Pommer]

The question is does Christian beliefs and values conflict with the State and other agents representing the State beliefs and values. It seems that you believe the State cannot fall into a form of Totalitarism. What do you think would happen if a member stood up in parliament or a polititian expressed their view about homosexuality or SSM in the public forum.

Look at Jordan Peterson. If the State goes after a non Christian professional who expresses their belief then they are certainly going to go after a Christian who doews the same and in the same position. They are more or less saying you cannot express your belief if it opposes the status quo the State has determined as correct.

Christians already do and have done for decades. We learnt that long ago as Christian beliefs on marriage and family law, abortion and a host of other anti Christian laws and policies. Do you think the laws and policies that replaced the Christian ones were opposing Christianity. Or were they completely neutral.

OK so you don't think any of the laws and policies that the government has implemented are not anti-Christian. If Christians believe that abortion is wrong wouldn't the fact that the State law that allows abortion be an anti Christian position to take for example.

So your saying laws and policies are moral. I am talking about whether the government has stepped into peoples private lives with their laws and policies which is politics. Whether the State is infringing our private lives, breaching our Rights to freedom is very relevant to this thread as it is anti democractic to deny peoples freedom.

But it doesn't work that way in many nations. Sometimes the party that gets into power can have less votes but get over the line with preferences from minority parties. So the mninority parties can force labor to implement policies that labor voters may disagree with which then puts a minority in the position of power over the majority.

This happens especially with the Green and environmental minority parties. But can also happen with independents where a handful of people can dictate policies that the majority disagree with because the major party has to compromise their policies to accommodate minorities that hold the balance of power.

Then there there are the Lobbyist, Unionist and big Corps who can dictate law and policy because the major parties are dependent on them to win elections. They more or less buy the policies they want through either financial support or through associations. For example The Workers union usually aligns with Labor who are socialists or big corps are tied to Conservatives who are pro private enterprise. Then there are the individual lobbyist and organisations who side with parties or lobby parties in exchange for promoting their agendas.

Ok well in Britain and Australia minor parties can have a lot of influence even when the majority did not vote for them. This has forced radical ideas from minor parties onto the majority of people. I think Canada may be the same as well as a few European nations. As a result Democracy has decreased in most nations.

But its interesting with the US. I know that when Trump got in it seemed the majority of people were unhappy. Maybe thats how it came across as many seemed devasted. Not just that it seems not too long after a government gets in power people are calling for them to go. It seems they don't get what they voted for. The parties make promises and then break them or bring in policies they did not tell the people about. In other words they misrepresented the people and the majority didn't get what they wanted.

The problem is the compromise is usually not what the majority wanted.

So the environmentalist or other parties like the Gun party don't have any influence.

No I like democracy. I am saying its failing and that so called democractic nations are less democractic and becoming more controlling. I thought that was obvious. Why would I be criticising the current lack of democracy by governments in taking our freedoms.

It would seem as if the “maximum individual-freedom” crowd is dead set against democracy, and yet somehow, unironically.

 

[o_mlly]

we just have different conceptions of what actually constitutes morality.

As previously posted, my conception of morality applies to all human acts whether done individually or collectively. However, I accept the forum's definition which divides collective acts from individual acts.

The Ethics and Morality forum is for discussions that address conduct based on ethics (the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture) and morality (the personal compass of what is right and wrong for an individual). Ethics are set because society says it's right while morals are set because the individual believes something is right or wrong. The discussions on ethics and morality may also address character traits.

In either case, the act can be determined as either right or wrong.

Is it right or wrong for society to standardize the left instead of the right side of public roads for forward travel? No.

Is it right or wrong for society to restrict the right of some to drive on public roads? Yes.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, that's one way to maintain an inequality of wealth I guess.

Is an inequality of wealth a bad (immoral) thing?

Or do you guess that unless coerced, people are so selfish that they will not care for the poor in their midst?

I suggest doing the proposed thought experiment fully before drawing a conclusion. Although neither the use of government force nor the lack of it, are perfect solutions to relieve the distress of the less fortunate (there are trade-offs), one is more just than the other.

 

[o_mlly]

Still the major point obtains: among a largely diverse electorate, governments exist to resolve disagreements .

No. Legislation is not to settle disagreements.

Let's not quibble. "Resolve" and "settle" are not fully synonyms.

 

[Danthemailman]

I found this interesting: According to Plato - democracy is the worst form of government since no measures guarantee a rightfully elected leader has the virtues that articulate best interests of the masses. Plato's charge against democracy is that it violates the proper order of society by creating an artificial equality. Plato, one of the earliest thinkers and writers about democracy, predicted that letting people govern themselves would eventually lead the masses to support the rules of tyrants. So, does democracy ultimately degenerate into totalitarianism? That certainly appears to be the direction the US is headed right now as we speak.

 

[stevevw]

It would seem as if the “maximum individual-freedom” crowd is dead set against democracy, and yet somehow, unironically.

Yes what they don't realize is that they are trying to attack and bring down the very government and culture that enabled them to have the freedom to make their protests. There are not many cultures that allow that. It use to be more like 'Us' being united but now its like a million and 1 me's divided. That is why I think we have perhaps moved from a democractic system to an identity politics one.

 

[Whyayeman]

I am not quibbling over semantics. Democratically elected governments are made free to govern by winning. They owe nothing to the opposition. That is the point of the election.

The disagreements have already been settled by the vote.

 

[o_mlly]

I am not quibbling over semantics. Democratically elected governments are made free to govern by winning. They owe nothing to the opposition. That is the point of the election.

The disagreements have already been settled by the vote.

If you say so, whyayeman.

​

 

[Ana the Ist]

Mmm. Someone who dictates how we should live and is benevolent. Let me think on that...

Say you visited a country where, for whatever reason, you had no idea who was running it. You don't know if it's one person or many. You have no idea how they achieved that position. And you are asked whether the society you are visiting is a good one or not. And you see very little crime, a fair distribution of wealth, equal opportunity, a safe environment, health care for all, freedom of speech and beliefs, excellent education for all, the arts are flourishing. Everyone tells you that they are relatively happy and content. No-one can honestly suggest anything that they think could be improved.

Does it then really matter how the leader(s) came to lead? If it turns out to be a dictatorship, do you then try to convince everyone that it's the wrong way to do it? That they should individually be deciding who runs the show. So they ask for an example where this is done. And you say - well, the largest democratic nation would be...the US. And they'll be democratically electing their leader pretty soon. They'll either be voting for a guy in his eighties or a known liar and convicted sexual offender.

I know where I'd prefer to live.

I think you've hit on a great point here...

Between a hypothetical nation that has never existed and can never exist and a democracy....if that hypothetical nation is paradise....then yes, we'd all choose the hypothetical.

Since it's not a choice, you know, because of human nature, reality, real life, people....or however you want to describe it....it doesn't really add much to the discussion.


Valid point though in fiction land.