> A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised.
By that criterion, a good democracy can vote to enslave or exterminate a minority.
By that criterion, a good democracy can vote to enslave or exterminate a minority.
I don’t think voting to exterminate a group of people would be more straightforward in a perfect democracy compared to our status quo system.
Still though you will always be able to, no matter how I (pithily) define the term, find some absurd, abstract scenario where you can make democracy out to be some devil incarnate political philosophy, in the same way that one can “debunk” utilitarianism by invoking the Utility Monster.
Calm down now...
The way to solve the problem you want to solve is with rights, constitutions, charters and such things, not definitions. Voting alone isn't sufficient for a good democracy. That's all I was pointing out.
> in the same way that one can “debunk” utilitarianism by invoking the Utility Monster.
I mean we literally have multiple living utility monsters, so that's not a very wise comment to make.
You’re the one that said “voting”. I originally said democracy.
Voting is just one of the brass taxes of democracy. A democracy is not less capable of making rights, constitutions, etc. than for example a bunch of so-called founding fathers. Or whatever/whoever else.
> , not definitions.
Right. I am not trying to make a foolproof political system from a bunch of axioms, here. Remind me. Who was the one who objected to my off-the-cuff definition of “democracy”? Is that same person now objecting to focusing on definitions?
You did though, with "the interests of most people are exercised." This is just voting. Their interests would not be exercised with limiting measures. That's the point.
Notice that I originally just said “democracy” and then you immediately took that to mean voting and all the apparent downsides that go along with it. Apparently I could have said anything else alongside “democracy” and then you would have drawn the same conclusion, namely your pre-existing hangups with the system. For example “democracy is when the people have power”. And then you retort with “... the power to kill minorities”.
Again. A demoracy is not any less capable of establishing rights, a constitution, etc. compared to for example a bunch of so-called founding fathers. A group of founding fathers is after all not a group of automatons that are bound to whatever choices the ballot box says exists. For that matter: who decides what is put on the ballot? The people. Who decides whether to vote or something or not? The people. See? There are no bare facts, some given-by-God things that you start off with. Unless you think that the Founding Fathers of the US were handed the Constitution by God, like Moses.
Yes. Some people do indeed have this bizarre fixation on voting when it comes to democracy. And they have this irrational fear that minority rights would vanish under a true democracy, probably because they falsely think that (1) voting is all that a democracy is about, and (2) they are so ignorant that they think that majoritarianism (say 51% of the vote) is the only kind of voting that exists! However, I personally don’t have the patience to go through this dance every time someone tries to gotcha me by bringing up hypothetical extermination of minorities when I bring up such a non-offensive, off-the-cuff, provisional definition of “democracy”:
> > A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised.
You're repeating yourself now, so I will too. Exercising interests is voting.
What’s this in reference to? Capitalism? Climate change? Is utalitarianism the cause of those things?
Billionaires, who have more than they could ever possibly spend.
I don’t personally care for Utilitarianism. But these counter-arguments are not convincing considering they are so hypothetical. They are just about gaming an algorithm. Or gaming a definition, if you will.
Billionaires were born by capitalism, which accompanying philosohy is political liberalism. Utilitarianism is not central to political liberalism. Interestingly that quote from Wikipedia is from Nozick, one of the few academic philosophers to advocate for Libertarianism.
No true Scotsman
I get the sentiment, but these are imperfect solutions. Rights, constitutions, and charters an also be democratically removed. If anything, they simply add a barrier or delay, which I would agree is a good thing for something as significant as revoking a right.
Yes, exactly. Some things can require a consensus decision making process. Some things can require that the people agree to it through multiple rounds. Some things can be changed easily, like parking regulations in your neighborhood. Some other things should require more effort.
Thanks for countering your own original argument.
While I am a firm believer in immutable rights in the philosophical sense, immutable rights do not and can not exist in the physical/political world. Rights in the physical world are always dependent on the ability and will to exercise force.
I agree that you can establish constitutions which create barriers and make change difficult as long as people are willing to adhere to the governing constitution.
Ultimately, you still need to come up with a purpose of a political system and criteria for discerning a good one from a bad one, no matter what your selected criteria is.
Democratic political systems can only add friction and delay the execution of the majority will and no democratic system is capable of maintaining immutable rights against a sufficient public interest.
In this sense, the criticism is empty because there is no alternative.
Seems that we agree.