Ymir
16th March 2003, 22:34
Taken from: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor.../democracy.html (http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html)
This is a very good website against democracy and has many good arguments. I have posted an excerpt here in this forum, but I will leave the link and reccommend everyone reads the full text. If you support democracy you should know a few things first.
"In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?
So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, democracy has functioned perfectly, and the outcome of the democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy if it allows this outcome.
The defect is not hard to find: the people most affected by the decision are excluded from voting. The issue is the composition of the demos, the decision-making unit in a democracy: it is a recurrent theme in the ethics of democracy. Democratic theory legitimises a political community in the form of an island of prosperity, and then legitimises the selfish decisions of that community. This theoretical possibility corresponds with the real historical development of the western democracies. Millions of people are dying of hunger and preventable disease, yet the electorate in rich democracies will not accept mass transfers of wealth to poorer countries.
This is not the only such problem with democracy. Despite its quasi-sacred status, democracy has many ethical defects which are either evident in practice, or easily illustrated by hypothetical examples.
The treatment of minorities is perhaps the most recognised defect of democracies. Between the mid-1930's and the mid-1970's, the Swedish government forcibly sterilised thousands of women, because of 'mental defects', or simply because they were of 'mixed race'. Yet Sweden has been a model democracy for the entire period. The democracy worked, the problem is that democracy offers no protection to marginalised and despised minorities. The usual answer of democrats is that excesses can be prevented by constitutionally enforced individual rights. There are two problems with that.
First, no constitutional rights are absolute: President Bush showed how easy it is to overturn constitutional protections. Simply by redefining American citizens as 'enemy combatants', he was able to intern them. In Britain the Blair government plans to detain without trial anyone with a 'personality disorder'. The official diagnostic criteria for that include: being envious of others, spending money irresponsibly, unsafe sex, driving recklessly, and feeling lonely. Probably most of the population could be detained, but so long as only unpopular minorities are targeted, mass opposition is unlikely. The point is that such mental health detention powers do not usually conflict with constitutional rights, so they provide a back-door internment procedure. Some groups are in any case openly excluded from the usual democratic rights, most notably illegal immigrants (more on this later). The Australian government detains asylum seekers in internment camps in the desert: its hard line accurately reflects the attitudes of a racist electorate. The detainees can't vote, can't engage in political activities, and have no free press, but Australia is still considered a democracy.
The second problem is that basic rights allow wide limits. Treatment of minorities may be harsh and humiliating, without infringing their rights. The unintended introduction of 'workfare prostitution' in the Netherlands is an example. Since prostitution is now legal, and the unemployed are obliged to accept any work offered, some women will be obliged to work as a prostitute. The government contends that it is not 'forced', since the sanction is loss of unemployment benefit. The policy is not 'undemocratic': the majority of the electorate would approve almost any hard-line policy directed against the unemployed."
It is very long, but a worthwhile read. If you support democracy, you should read this!
(Edited by Ymir at 11:02 pm on Mar. 16, 2003)
This is a very good website against democracy and has many good arguments. I have posted an excerpt here in this forum, but I will leave the link and reccommend everyone reads the full text. If you support democracy you should know a few things first.
"In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?
So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, democracy has functioned perfectly, and the outcome of the democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy if it allows this outcome.
The defect is not hard to find: the people most affected by the decision are excluded from voting. The issue is the composition of the demos, the decision-making unit in a democracy: it is a recurrent theme in the ethics of democracy. Democratic theory legitimises a political community in the form of an island of prosperity, and then legitimises the selfish decisions of that community. This theoretical possibility corresponds with the real historical development of the western democracies. Millions of people are dying of hunger and preventable disease, yet the electorate in rich democracies will not accept mass transfers of wealth to poorer countries.
This is not the only such problem with democracy. Despite its quasi-sacred status, democracy has many ethical defects which are either evident in practice, or easily illustrated by hypothetical examples.
The treatment of minorities is perhaps the most recognised defect of democracies. Between the mid-1930's and the mid-1970's, the Swedish government forcibly sterilised thousands of women, because of 'mental defects', or simply because they were of 'mixed race'. Yet Sweden has been a model democracy for the entire period. The democracy worked, the problem is that democracy offers no protection to marginalised and despised minorities. The usual answer of democrats is that excesses can be prevented by constitutionally enforced individual rights. There are two problems with that.
First, no constitutional rights are absolute: President Bush showed how easy it is to overturn constitutional protections. Simply by redefining American citizens as 'enemy combatants', he was able to intern them. In Britain the Blair government plans to detain without trial anyone with a 'personality disorder'. The official diagnostic criteria for that include: being envious of others, spending money irresponsibly, unsafe sex, driving recklessly, and feeling lonely. Probably most of the population could be detained, but so long as only unpopular minorities are targeted, mass opposition is unlikely. The point is that such mental health detention powers do not usually conflict with constitutional rights, so they provide a back-door internment procedure. Some groups are in any case openly excluded from the usual democratic rights, most notably illegal immigrants (more on this later). The Australian government detains asylum seekers in internment camps in the desert: its hard line accurately reflects the attitudes of a racist electorate. The detainees can't vote, can't engage in political activities, and have no free press, but Australia is still considered a democracy.
The second problem is that basic rights allow wide limits. Treatment of minorities may be harsh and humiliating, without infringing their rights. The unintended introduction of 'workfare prostitution' in the Netherlands is an example. Since prostitution is now legal, and the unemployed are obliged to accept any work offered, some women will be obliged to work as a prostitute. The government contends that it is not 'forced', since the sanction is loss of unemployment benefit. The policy is not 'undemocratic': the majority of the electorate would approve almost any hard-line policy directed against the unemployed."
It is very long, but a worthwhile read. If you support democracy, you should read this!
(Edited by Ymir at 11:02 pm on Mar. 16, 2003)