Welfare more important than democracy

[Xanathos]

What about Iran? People can vote for President but vote for candidates chosen by the Supreme Leader and in any case 80% of the power is in unelected bodies. Is it even worth mentioning that they might have it marginally better than someone in Saudi Arabia, for me it's not as they still in a repressive, theocratic regime and in this in instance I'm supportive of those who called for a boycott of the recent elections not those who said vote Mousavi because he might be a bit better than Ahmadinejad.

Iran is unquestionably a tyranny. Clothes maketh not the man, and the trappings of democracy do not make a democracy.

I entirely agree.

As was previously mentioned, democracy without restrictions is extremely dangerous, which is where we see the supreme importance of a judicial branch that can strike down laws according to a constitution (eg: America) or established precedent (eg: Britain). A democracy can only be positive if it guarantees certain liberties to its citizens, otherwise it is, as Chazza said, only tyranny by majority.

[Amazeroth]

I think you have to separate 'majority rule' from 'democracy'. For a democracy to function, all voices must have a similar, if not equal, weight. The only real and functioning democracies we have seen in the modern world have been liberal and pluralistic, if we are to accept that this is the model of democracy for Freedomland then Man A is always going to have greater welfare than Man B. (Edit - Democracies may also be authoritarian, there's no dichotomy between authoritarianism and democracy, only tyranny and democracy.)

In the 90% vs. 10% example all voices have equal weight - it is a majority rule nonetheless. Without accepting principal or inherently human rights, a democracy is nothing else than a tyranny of the majority. What makes the western countries more "free" is not that we are democracies per se, it's that we have constitutions that leave certain spaces which a government is not allowed to control (or at least make it harder for the government to change that).

[Molotov]

I think you're right. It's not so much a guarantee of the rights of man in itself but an aversion to tyranny in all forms, of the individual or of the majority, that comes from these liberal values. Personally I don't think there are such things as universal human rights, at least not to the extent they are said to exist today, but they are a pleasant and on the whole beneficial fiction, and our countries are better off for respecting them.

[Captain-Socialist]

Hypothetically democracy will always win, but empirically we can only hope we never get to the point that choose will be made, as people tend towards welfare when it's a matter of their own welfare. The most important thing in preserving freedom is preventing hunger (and visa versa), as hunger obscures what little reason there is in crowds at the best of times. However, I think this discussion assumes too easily that authoritarianism is popularist, crowd based and economically interventionist (which is totalitarianism). Most authoritarian regimes are simply run by generals, land owning aristocrats, religious leaders and men of property who don't care much to interfere in the public and economic life of the nation expect too kill off those who wish to remove them. These regimes, though generally more numerous than totalitarian ones, are mostly ignored in favour of wildly exciting totalitarian experiments or dramatic revolutionary bloodbaths.

[Xanathos]

These regimes, though generally more numerous than totalitarian ones, are mostly ignored in favour of wildly exciting totalitarian experiments or dramatic revolutionary bloodbaths.

Do you really think these people should necessarily be deposed by the West?

[Khaler]

My view has always been that democracy can not work without high level public education. Without good, basic education people are not qualified to decide for themselves. I would be ready to go as far as having tests to determine if you are eligible to vote instead of just age limit. It shouldn't test if you "think right", but do you have enough knowledge to make up a view. It is not that hard change, as we aleady limit it with voting age. Why not extend it to voting knowledge? That is why there should be free media also, so that everyone who cares could get the required knowledge and make up their view. Yeah, utopia, I know. The way democracy works today, it is not eternal. It leaves the option for the masses to give up their power, to give up democracy, and they have done that countless of times already. As long as we have people who are afraid of death, democracy can never last forever. Concerned people give the keys to the fascists' fists. They will choose safety instead of freedom if they have to make a choice. That is why democracy will eventually always fail, because if there is a probability other than 0 that something can happen, it will happen. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, but some day. That can be limited with constiution, but constitution that cannot be changed is against democracy itself. Though such constitution does not and can not exist. If majority want's something badly enough, no constitution can stop them.

That is ofcourse if we believe that democracy is the best way to govern a country. If I wouldn't be such a freedomjunkie I would more than likely be intrigued by "Rule of the Intellectuels" introduced by the philosophers of the antique. But who chooses the intellectuels? It would swift towards tyranny in the end anyway.

Then again, human race survived and evolved with mere anarchy for 350,000 years, so to this date, it is the most stable and oldest way to "govern" anything.

[Amazeroth]

Then again, human race survived and evolved with mere anarchy for 350,000 years, so to this date, it is the most stable and oldest way to "govern" anything.

Not really. There would have been chieftains of some sort probably.

[Khaler]

Not really. There would have been chieftains of some sort probably.

Well how would anarchy work if not someone becoming the leader? It is inevitable in anarchy.

[Chazza]

Not really. There would have been chieftains of some sort probably.

Well how would anarchy work if not someone becoming the leader? It is inevitable in anarchy.

Not necessarily, anarchy just means without government it does not mean without organisation. For example a system of horizontal organisation of free association built from the grassroots upwards (work place/community councils for example) prevent to growth of leaders, of hierarchy and of domination. However this is of course not a guarantee, if these structures do not exists there could simply exist chaos of the growth of another hierarchical structure.

[JuliaAJA]

Does this really happen? I expect I could be wealthier in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, should I choose to live and work there, but I do not nor would I ever (permanently, at least).

Only Muslims are allowed to live permanently in Saudi Arabia, so it's not even an option.

in a democracy laws are at least caused somehow by the majority, and not by one man alone.

...which is not necessarily a good thing
(given IQ of median voter)

"The best argument against democracy is a fifteen minute talk with the average voter." - Winston Churchill