Political Theories

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
*points to the US, which isn't a dictatorship*
*points to the patriot acts, guantanamo bay and the "disappearing" of various muslims after 9/11 and their incarceration without trial or charge*

Now either:
1) The US is in fact a dictatorship (or as bad as one)
or
2) The "freedoms" you refer to can be overridden by all forms of government, not just dictatorship and thus you need another criterion to determine whether or not dictatorship is inherently evil.

No. I said that dictatorships were intrinsically evil. You are simply arguing that limiting of freedom is possible in non-dictatorships. This is not intrinsic to democracies. In fact, to be called a democracy, certain freedoms are necessary.

I'd recommend you look more at what limitations a government puts on itself rather than the freedoms it awards it's citizens.

Lets get the first bit straight about the intrisic evil of dictatorships. Do you agree with this? It has nothing to do with the US.

Sparks

No. I said that dictatorships were intrinsically evil. You are simply arguing that evil is possible in non-dictatorships.

Perhaps you could re-read the second alternative I pointed out?

Lets get the first bit straight about the intrisic evil of dictatorships. Do you agree with this? It has nothing to do with the US.

No, I don't agree with it, for the following reason:
A dictatorship is the rule over a state by one individual. In order for that form of government to be inherently evil, you must state that all humans are inherently evil.
Remember, not all dictatorships are like those of Pinochet and Hitler - recall that the person who invented democracy was in fact a dictator (though the actual word was tyrant at the time).

However, I will argue that dictatorship is the form of government that is most open to abuse, because only one person need be corrupted. Representative democracy was a big step forward from this because it meant that you had to corrupt hundreds of people to assure your agenda was followed. Today, sadly, our society has progressed to the point where corruption of a few hundred people is easily achieved - so personally, I think it's time we moved on to direct democracy, because you would have to corrupt a majority of the society to achieve your agenda - which is beyond even Bill Gates' financial abilities for the moment...

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Perhaps you could re-read the second alternative I pointed out?

OK here it is: 'The "freedoms" you refer to can be overridden by all forms of government, not just dictatorship and thus you need another criterion to determine whether or not dictatorship is inherently evil.'

Except to be called a democracy, the freedom to vote (either directly in referenda or for a representative) must be present. Now, you may argue that people in prison don't get to vote etc. What this means is that, to this extent the are not true democracies. Case in point would be South Africa under apartheid. This was evil insofar as peoples freedom could be encroached upon without their consent.

No, I don't agree with it, for the following reason:
A dictatorship is the rule over a state by one individual.In order for that form of government to be inherently evil, you must state that all humans are inherently evil.
Remember, not all dictatorships are like those of Pinochet and Hitler - recall that the person who invented democracy was in fact a dictator (though the actual word was tyrant at the time).

The point I'm making is independent of the good or evil of the dictator himself. I'm saying that the very nature of dictatorship is evil since there is no freedom.

However, I will argue that dictatorship is the form of government that is most open to abuse

I agree and there are a load of other practical issues arising from lack of accountability.

Sparks

The point I'm making is independent of the good or evil of the dictator himself. I'm saying that the very nature of dictatorship is evil since there is no freedom.

Not necessarily. Take McMurdo for example - it's a military/civilian scientific base run by the highest ranked officer. Technically, it qualifies as a dictatorship. But that doesn't mean it's inherently evil.

What it boils down to is that you judge a government on the basis of what it has done if you want to say it's "evil". And that means you can't state that a government is inherently "evil".

And that's quite apart from the fact that "evil" is a highly subjective term. For example, we don't see homosexuality or atheism or polygamy as "evil" today, but a hundred years ago, we'd kill people for those acts or beliefs.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Not necessarily. Take McMurdo for example - it's a military/civilian scientific base run by the highest ranked officer. Technically, it qualifies as a dictatorship. But that doesn't mean it's inherently evil.

Two points: you volunteer to work there, or you volunteer for the military and get sent there. Secondly, the commander does not have unlimited powers. He can't shoot people without consequences. There may be limited freedom, but it is not the case that there is no freedom. In that sense it is no different to any organisation.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
And that's quite apart from the fact that "evil" is a highly subjective term. For example, we don't see homosexuality or atheism or polygamy as "evil" today, but a hundred years ago, we'd kill people for those acts or beliefs.

Indeed, and dictatorships or tyrants were once unquestioned.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
The ability of a dictator to, say, lock you up or have you shot, even if he chooses not to do so today, means you have no freedom.

Replace "dictator" with "democratically elected government" and that statement is still as accurate as you make it out to be for dictators.

You have taken the tack that if a democracy does such things, then its not really a democracy. OK - its a fair point.

However, I defy you to show me a single "real" democracy (by that standard) anywhere in the world today - one which does not abuse what you see as the limits of a "real" democracy.

I guarantee you that you cannot.

You state as an example that democracy must guarantee the freedom of the right to vote - pick a nation where 100% of the population have voting rights and I'll believe you. Indeed, show me a nation where 100% of just the adult population have voting rights and I'll believe you. Otherwise, all you're saying is that its a freedom which is selectedly handed out.

By your standard, every functioning government - past and present - is intrinsically evil, as there has never been a government which granted real freedom. In every case it is "here are the freedoms we choose to allow you to have, until such times as we choose to take them off you".

I'll tell you what...name a single freedom that you have today which your democratic government cannot take off you. Just one. It may not be as easy or them as a dictator to do (as Sparks has already argued), but that doesn't mean that they cannot find a way to do it should they wish.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
You have taken the tack that if a democracy does such things, then its not really a democracy. OK - its a fair point.

However, I defy you to show me a single "real" democracy (by that standard) anywhere in the world today - one which does not abuse what you see as the limits of a "real" democracy.

I guarantee you that you cannot.

You state as an example that democracy must guarantee the freedom of the right to vote - pick a nation where 100% of the population have voting rights and I'll believe you. Indeed, show me a nation where 100% of just the adult population have voting rights and I'll believe you. Otherwise, all you're saying is that its a freedom which is selectedly handed out.

Yes, I'm sure we all agree that democracy is an ideal. It is never fully implemented in practice. Insofar as a political system falls short of this ideal, it contains some of the problems of dictatorship.

Potentially, in a representative democracy, an elected government could grant itself wide reaching powers. However, if they interfered with the right to vote significantly, or limited free political speech you would reach the point that it could not be reasonably called a democracy. It would be approaching a dictatorship.

While there is semblance of a democracy, there is a degree of accountability and the government can be influenced by the people. While this is the case, it is hard for them to impose draconian laws. This is why I don't think democracies are intrinsically evil.

In short, to be called a democracy (even by loose standards), the government cannot have absolute power. Absolute power means no freedom. This is slavery. I would regard this as intrinsically evil.

While it is a democracy (by ordinary standards), the government can't choose to an innocent person shot without breaking the same law as if I shot you.

Sparks

However, if they interfered with the right to vote significantly, or limited free political speech you would reach the point that it could not be reasonably called a democracy.

By which time, the semantics would be irrelevant.

While there is semblance of a democracy, there is a degree of accountability and the government can be influenced by the people. While this is the case, it is hard for them to impose draconian laws.

Incorrect.
*points to the patriot acts and Guantanamo Bay in the states and the amendment to the FOI act, the data retention act, last year's gardai actions at the RTS protest, the use of armed soldiers to guard shannon airport from legitimate protest, and the policy of internment without trial that was implemented in the 70s here.*

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
By which time, the semantics would be irrelevant.

No, the semantics would still be important. There are examples of supposed "democracies" that are abused to the extent that only the insane or the very foolish would call them such.

There will always be a judgement to be made as to whether a country is a democracy. However, some freedoms must be granted, for a normal person to consider a country a democracy. You can't have a democracy with no freedoms. A country that removes all freedoms ceases to be a democracy by any definition.

Dictatorships allow no freedom except the illusion of freedom and are therefore intrinsically evil in the sense that one person has total authority over others.

Can we agree that one person having total authority over others is intrinsically evil?

Even in an imperfect democracy (as all are), there are at least mechanisms to limit power, otherwise they could not reasonably be called such.

Sparks

No, the semantics would still be important.

Not to anyone who was a citizen of that state....

Can we agree that one person having total authority over others is intrinsically evil?

Doubt it. We could agree that it was inherently wrong to us, however.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Incorrect.
*points to the patriot acts and Guantanamo Bay in the states and the amendment to the FOI act, the data retention act, last year's gardai actions at the RTS protest, the use of armed soldiers to guard shannon airport from legitimate protest, and the policy of internment without trial that was implemented in the 70s here.*

There are various categories of things mentioned here. Only some of them are to do with the eroding of rights. Even so, they can not remove the fundamental rights of free political speech and the right to vote. As such, all these things can be reversed. Of course if the system is rigged that it can't be reversed, then we don't have a democracy. The word has a meaning and implies certain rights.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Not to anyone who was a citizen of that state....

I think the meaning of the word democracy would be particularly important to someone in a state where it is being eroded.

Doubt it. We could agree that it was inherently wrong to us, however.

Fine. Do you agree that one person having total power over another is wrong?

potlatch

Voting is an act of disenfranchisement. Voting is a transfer of power from the many to the few.

There is no such thing as freedom qua freedom. People experience impediments to their freedom on a daily basis. People are 'unfree' to the extent that they are prevented from doing as they wish. As it happens, one man's freedom is another man's unfreedom. Democracy, based on consensus, is about being mutually constrained to maximise everyone's basic freedoms and equalities.

The nature of modern republican democracy (what we have now) is fundamentally disempowering as it takes responsibility away from the community by extending bureaucracy and reducing participation.

I think everyone is agreed on what democracy is ideal. This isn't so much an issue. We need to examine the boundaries between public and private goods, the interaction of which are the arenas that ultimately give shape to the state and its provisions and protections.

It's absurd that we sit here talking about democracy yet the kind of democracy people envisage is one which is entirely selfish, one which conceives of freedom as the ability to do what you want without public interference. Everyone agrees private liberty should be defended at all costs (it's agreed in our UN Declaration on Human Rights); the extension of the private sphere to all aspects of life is seriously damaging. It undermines our ability to govern ourselves.

All we do nowadays is transfer our power to a bunch of people we decide can run the 'show' and we sit back and watch it on television and complain.

And people say Jamie Oliver is a substitute for cooking.

Sparks

There are various categories of things mentioned here. Only some of them are to do with the eroding of rights.

Actually, they all do. Can I save space and not give an itemised list of each act and the right or rights that it erodes or removes?

I think the meaning of the word democracy would be particularly important to someone in a state where it is being eroded.

Actually, I don't think it would be - "fixing" the situation would be of far more importance.

Fine. Do you agree that one person having total power over another is wrong?

Yes.
It's just that it's important to note that that's not accepted world-wide, and without having total power over other people, you can't make it be accepted world-wide...

Voting is an act of disenfranchisement. Voting is a transfer of power from the many to the few.

Except in the case of binding referendums. Of course we don't have those here ... :rolleyes:
But in general, yes. Hence my preference for direct democracy. And why I'd go live in Switzerland if I could speak swiss-german... and I didn't have to dodge bonkey all the time

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
There are various categories of things mentioned here. Only some of them are to do with the eroding of rights. Even so, they can not remove the fundamental rights of free political speech and the right to vote.

I defy you to find a single inmate of the Guantanamo Bay "facility", who still retrins the "fundamental" rights of free political speech and the right to vote.

You talk about the "illusion of freedom" under a dictator. No-one has seriously argued against that point. What I and others are arguing is that the freedoms enjoyed under democracy as it is implemented in the real world are equally as illusory.

No-one is questioning that a democracy is preferable to a dictatorship either. What is simply being said is that if a dictatorship is evil because of the real (as opposed to perceived) lack of freedom, then democratic nations are no freeer, and therefore must be as intrinsically evil by your standards.

I on the other hand are arguing that this is not the case : that because a democracy is not intrinsically evil, neither can a dictatorship be - at least not on the grounds of the reality of freedom.

Name a single freedom that you have that cannot be removed from you (as opposed to from society) by the government. Just one.

The most obvious example is the right to life. Of course, your government can hand you over to a foreign nation like the US through extradition, where you could easily be tried and executed....so even that isn't quite as sacrosanct as you might like to believe.

So honestly....just one inalienable freedom....

jc

potlatch

Take your "evil" talk over to the Christianity forum, Godboy.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by potlatch
Take your "evil" talk over to the Christianity forum, Godboy.

LOL. This forum is full of people expressing moral outrage. What is that about?

SkepticOne

I just want to summarise a line of argument briefly:

Me: Can we agree that one person having total authority over others is intrinsically evil?

Sparks: Doubt it. We could agree that it was inherently wrong to us, however.

Me: Fine. Do you agree that one person having total power over another is wrong?

Sparks:

Originally posted by Sparks
Yes.

In what sense is it wrong? I think from the context, we can agree that (among other things) it is morally wrong. We are morally offended by the idea of someone having total control over another. It is the same moral issue we have with slavery.

Yet this is inherent to the idea of dictatorship. At least democracy (even in its current forms) contains limits to the power of the government. For example the Irish system involves a written constitution that constrains government.

It's just that it's important to note that that's not accepted world-wide, and without having total power over other people, you can't make it be accepted world-wide...

Yes, the removal of dictators in other countries is a separate issue.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
Name a single freedom that you have that cannot be removed from you (as opposed to from society) by the government. Just one.

The government cannot take away my right to vote unless I'm in prison. I'm not saying this is proper, but the government can't take away this right for arbitrary reasons.

The most obvious example is the right to life. Of course, your government can hand you over to a foreign nation like the US through extradition, where you could easily be tried and executed....so even that isn't quite as sacrosanct as you might like to believe.

I'm not sure of this. I seem to remember a case where extradition had been turned down on the basis that execution might occur. In any case, this would be the function of an independent judiciary, not the government.

Havelock

To spark a whole new level of discussion, I feel at this point I should lay out the actual political beliefs of the leader in question. They may offend those with Christian sentiments or humanist views, but remember they are to establish a better state for the citizen, and secure a future for their children.

1) 360 days a year Government work days.

2) Government Officers salaries to be the same as average salary through out the state

3) Education, Medical and Public services to be the most important services in regards financing, unkeep and national pride.

4) A cirriculum of free-mindedness and embracing individuality to be taught in the schools.

5) FREE health care, paid for from taxs.

6) One tax level, for everyone, no exceptions, no breaks.

7) Social welfare, will provide for those who have worked in the past, maintaining them for a max of one year. If you can't find work within a year, your not looking.

8) No Churches or Lobbies to be given any breaks, in regards the law, taxs nor are they going to be involed at any level in the dictating of law and education.

9) A crimes to have dictated sentences, no mitigating circumstances, racial or social group bias.

10) No one is abov ethe law, noty even the leader, very final sentences for corruption, and other "white collar" crimes.

11) Terminal Sentencing for Sexually Related Crimes.

12) Tabacoo To Be Illegalised. Cheaper to inforce Draconian Custom regultions then pay for health bills caused by smoking.

13) Legalisation of Hash, (personally I never touch the stuff, but its medically ok for you and will reduce stress related medical promblems)

14) Eugenics program to be maintained in regards to all pregnacies in state, no unproductive citizens. No leeching of the government funds.

15) Prisioners to do productive work, to create enough revenue to pay for their incarseration during their sentence.

16) Free press, and open media, no broadcasting liecences required.

17) Acceptance of all religious creeds/beliefs as long as they don't impose upon their religious idelogy on others.

18) Equal rights to ALL citizens.

19) Incouragement of self suffency of the state.

20) Green Environmental Policy, no combustion engines in public transport, state incourages public to use walking, cycling or electric cars (hopefully produced in country) all energy is produced through renewable sources.

21) No Army, only a State Security Service incompacing Police, State Defence and Counter-Espionage.

22) Manditory State security service training, may be incompased into education services. No exceptions, not all branchs will be armed.

23) No forced retirement age, optional retirement at 60 or 65 for maintaining state pension (No loss of real income due to taking retirement)

24) Strong Scientific Advancement funds for 3rd level education.

25) Highest Standards demanded for Immgration and Nationlisation, of those who wish to be citizens. No automatic citizenship unless both parnets are citizens.

Thats all I can think of for the moment, I'm sure there is many more. If you wish to object on moral issues don't bother, I won't read them. If your opinions are of the political nature go ahead.

potlatch

But if he was all powerful, wouldn't he be able to change those rules to anything he wanted? They're just your rules.

Havelock

One and the same, dear boy!