"Freedom is no longer compatible with democracy" (1 Viewer)

[independentusa]

That is something Peter Thiel said in 2007. Peter thiel is a German-American Billionaire who is backing Trump and Trump candidates throughout the US. He seemed to be saying that ultimate freedom from any government interference can not be had within a democracy, thus some kind of authoritarian government is better for freedom? I guess I do not understand that concept, but it seems that is the way the GOP under Trump is headed. When I look at those countries without democracy, I do not see them having not only ultimate freedom, but much freedom at all.

 

[jnug]

That is something Peter Thiel said in 2007. Peter thiel is a German-American Billionaire who is backing Trump and Trump candidates throughout the US. He seemed to be saying that ultimate freedom from any government interference can not be had within a democracy, thus some kind of authoritarian government is better for freedom? I guess I do not understand that concept, but it seems that is the way the GOP under Trump is headed. When I look at those countries without democracy, I do not see them having not only ultimate freedom, but much freedom at all.

Thiel is an asshole. That is all I got.

 

[cpwill]

In a representative government, ultimately, classic liberal values can only sustain so far past the population giving up on them. There is no inherent reason to suppose that democracy will respect individual rights.

We have dramatically expanded the power and scope of government - each time justified because This Is Too Important. We've abused the power of government by turning it against domestic political opponents Because They Are Just So Bad or Because They Did It To Us.

We are creating - and feeding - the downward spiral.

 

[jnug]

In a representative government, ultimately, classic liberal values can only sustain so far past the population giving up on them. There is no inherent reason to suppose that democracy will respect individual rights.

We have dramatically expanded the power and scope of government - each time justified because This Is Too Important. We've abused the power of government by turning it against domestic political opponents Because They Are Just So Bad or Because They Did It To Us.

We are creating - and feeding - the downward spiral.

Which has nothing to do with what Thiel said. Thiel said "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"

 

[lwf]

In a representative government, ultimately, classic liberal values can only sustain so far past the population giving up on them. There is no inherent reason to suppose that democracy will respect individual rights.

We have dramatically expanded the power and scope of government - each time justified because This Is Too Important. We've abused the power of government by turning it against domestic political opponents Because They Are Just So Bad or Because They Did It To Us.

We are creating - and feeding - the downward spiral.

The saving grace being that in a democracy once enough of the population gets tired of having its individual rights trampled on, it can peacefully decide to change how things work to better represent the public good with a majority vote. Without democracy, it tends to take overwhelming violence, loss of life, and social upheaval to change the rules.

 

[cpwill]

Which has nothing to do with what Thiel said. Thiel said "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"

Apologies if I was unclear. We are taking actions that are driving those two things into less and less compatibility, indicating that Thiels' thesis may ultimately prove out.

 

[lwf]

That is something Peter Thiel said in 2007. Peter thiel is a German-American Billionaire who is backing Trump and Trump candidates throughout the US. He seemed to be saying that ultimate freedom from any government interference can not be had within a democracy, thus some kind of authoritarian government is better for freedom? I guess I do not understand that concept, but it seems that is the way the GOP under Trump is headed. When I look at those countries without democracy, I do not see them having not only ultimate freedom, but much freedom at all.

Freedom is not synonymous with democracy. But it is most easily achieved and protected with democracy. It is possible for freedom to exist in other forms of government. The problem is, it tends not to last very long, and tends to be impossible to get back without violence. In a democracy, more freedom can be gained without violence. All it takes it diplomacy.

 

[cpwill]

The saving grace being that in a democracy once enough of the population gets tired of having its individual rights trampled on,

Hm. That seems to assume that it's a majority's individual rights getting trampled on. The Us'ns.

I"m talking about those no-good others. You know, the bad ones. Not like us. It's fine if we say what we think and believe, because we think and believe the right things. I'm only talking about those bad beliefs.

it can peacefully decide to change how things work to better represent the public good with a majority vote. Without democracy, it tends to take overwhelming violence, loss of life, and social upheaval to change the rules.

That at least is true. The trick is - again - that it requires a majority dedicated to upholding individual liberty even for people they don't like over time.

 

[lwf]

Hm. That seems to assume that it's a majority's individual rights getting trampled on. The Us'ns.

I"m talking about those no-good others. You know, the bad ones. Not like us. It's fine if we say what we think and believe, because we think and believe the right things. I'm only talking about those bad beliefs.

That at least is true. The trick is - again - that it requires a majority dedicated to upholding individual liberty even for people they don't like over time.

This is true. But it can be done. America is a good example. When "the others" want more freedom and equality, they plead their case to their neighbors. It may not happen as quickly as it ought to, but it does happen. The younger generations see the disparity between the majority and minorities, and so they take up the fight on behalf of minorities, and eventually change happens. This represents cultural progress. Those who were once shunned are gradually recognized as equals.

This is far easier to do without violence in a democracy than it is in any other form of government.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Hm. That seems to assume that it's a majority's individual rights getting trampled on. The Us'ns.

I"m talking about those no-good others. You know, the bad ones. Not like us. It's fine if we say what we think and believe, because we think and believe the right things. I'm only talking about those bad beliefs.




That at least is true. The trick is - again - that it requires a majority dedicated to upholding individual liberty even for people they don't like over time.

We have had that happen in the cases of civil rights, LGBTQ rights, and women’s lib.

 

[Craig234]

Peter Thiel is a right-wing scummy big donor to bad causes. If the wealthy decided to overthrow democracy more than they already have, I'd expect him to be a leader. We should admit democracy isn't perfect, which is why we have some protections from it. Not enough in fact, as we see people like Thiel corrupt democracy with things like right-wing mass media propaganda. But it's still critical for freedoms.

 

[jnug]

Apologies if I was unclear. We are taking actions that are driving those two things into less and less compatibility, indicating that Thiels' thesis may ultimately prove out.

Still does not work. Democracy is a method of choosing elected officials in this country.

Now if you want to say that Democracy as practiced in this country where it has finally resulted in so many people moving from the poorer states to the richer states that the ultimate contradiction to Democracy, Minority Rule and the rich states being sapped of their riches to supplement the poorer states that also tend to make up the bulk of the Minority political spectrum in this country, now you are talking. At least you would have a discussion topic worth discussing.

Still does not have much of anything to do with what Thiel said.

 

[Moot]

It does seem that the further away from democracy a country gets the less freedom and rights an individual has.

Destroying the rights of women and minorities and voting rights is the beginning of the descent into authoritarian rule.

 

[Cardinal]

That is something Peter Thiel said in 2007. Peter thiel is a German-American Billionaire who is backing Trump and Trump candidates throughout the US. He seemed to be saying that ultimate freedom from any government interference can not be had within a democracy, thus some kind of authoritarian government is better for freedom? I guess I do not understand that concept,

That means you still have your sanity. When that concept seems rational is when you'll know you've lost it.

but it seems that is the way the GOP under Trump is headed. When I look at those countries without democracy, I do not see them having not only ultimate freedom, but much freedom at all.

Yeah, funny how authoritarianism and freedom don't co-exist very well.

 

[Peacenik]

That is something Peter Thiel said in 2007. Peter thiel is a German-American Billionaire who is backing Trump and Trump candidates throughout the US. He seemed to be saying that ultimate freedom from any government interference can not be had within a democracy, thus some kind of authoritarian government is better for freedom? I guess I do not understand that concept, but it seems that is the way the GOP under Trump is headed. When I look at those countries without democracy, I do not see them having not only ultimate freedom, but much freedom at all.

There is great disdain on the right for 'elites.'

They wanted someone to stand up for them and stand against elites; so they elected a selfish grifter billionaire? Who is supported by other billionaires?

They want more freedom than can be rationally allowed during a pandemic, so they support authoritarianism?

Well, obviously, these things are ridiculous opposites between the rhetoric and the result.

With the American right if you're expecting to see the rubber hit the road watch out for the black ice.

I would posit that this incongruity is the result of falling for dumb propaganda. The American right needs to admit it's own dishonesty with itself. The American right lies to itself. The American right simply does not actually believe in government of, by, and for the people. Something close to that. They really believe in government of, by, and for the rich and powerful who are willing to encourage, or are, racists.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That is something Peter Thiel said in 2007. Peter thiel is a German-American Billionaire who is backing Trump and Trump candidates throughout the US. He seemed to be saying that ultimate freedom from any government interference can not be had within a democracy, thus some kind of authoritarian government is better for freedom? I guess I do not understand that concept, but it seems that is the way the GOP under Trump is headed. When I look at those countries without democracy, I do not see them having not only ultimate freedom, but much freedom at all.

Thiel channeling his energy into MiniTru-isms

War is peace
Love is hate
Freedom is slavery

 

[Peacenik]

In a representative government, ultimately, classic liberal values can only sustain so far past the population giving up on them. There is no inherent reason to suppose that democracy will respect individual rights.

We have dramatically expanded the power and scope of government - each time justified because This Is Too Important. We've abused the power of government by turning it against domestic political opponents Because They Are Just So Bad or Because They Did It To Us.

We are creating - and feeding - the downward spiral.

The reason the population is giving up on liberal values is because there is so much profit to be had by spreading right wing propaganda. There is a significant proportion of the population which cannot distinguish between fact and opinion. They would sooner believe a what a peer says about the news than what the main stream media says. This is what allows dangerous rumors to spread. Most of the motivation for right wing voters is really just false rumors. The initial one being that the main stream media is 'fake news.' One of the most dangerous false rumors going around in America.

The truth is that almost everything reported by the main stream media news is true. One merely has to understand that most of it comes with a political slant to be aware of.

There is little wonder the right wing is resistant to properly fund schools. Their zeal to reduce taxes hurts America.

 

[Peacenik]

The saving grace being that in a democracy once enough of the population gets tired of having its individual rights trampled on, it can peacefully decide to change how things work to better represent the public good with a majority vote. Without democracy, it tends to take overwhelming violence, loss of life, and social upheaval to change the rules.

The public good is preserved by laws that protect lives.

A land with no government and no laws would have the maximum individual freedoms, but that is not what America is all about.

 

[Peacenik]

This is true. But it can be done. America is a good example. When "the others" want more freedom and equality, they plead their case to their neighbors. It may not happen as quickly as it ought to, but it does happen. The younger generations see the disparity between the majority and minorities, and so they take up the fight on behalf of minorities, and eventually change happens. This represents cultural progress. Those who were once shunned are gradually recognized as equals.

This is far easier to do without violence in a democracy than it is in any other form of government.

No violence is indeed preferable, but rarely realized. The mentality of a crowd too often represents the least intelligent. It is the outspoken and unrestrained who get more recognition than the truly perceptive in a crowd.

 

[aociswundumho]

"Freedom is no longer compatible with democracy"

It never was from the start. Democracy is majority rule, and being ruled over is obviously not compatible with freedom.

 

[cpwill]

This is true. But it can be done. America is a good example. When "the others" want more freedom and equality, they plead their case to their neighbors. It may not happen as quickly as it ought to, but it does happen. The younger generations see the disparity between the majority and minorities, and so they take up the fight on behalf of minorities, and eventually change happens. This represents cultural progress. Those who were once shunned are gradually recognized as equals.

This is far easier to do without violence in a democracy than it is in any other form of government.

Let me say that I agree with you - particularly that last - I just don't think there is any law of human nature that is going to move things along in that direction. The demos has a long history of turning on individual rights.

I think we tend to assume that classic liberalism is connected to classic liberalisms' formulation of individual rights because we came up with them together. A look around the world will show you quite a few "democracies" where a liberal understanding of individual liberties is not respected.

 

[cpwill]

Still does not work. Democracy is a method of choosing elected officials in this country.

Which means that those elected officials will attempt to put in that which makes the people feel good about them over time, regardless of the barriers they face in doing so.

Unfortunately, often what makes people feel good about themselves (and their officials) is screwing over disliked Others.

So, over time, Democracies tend to degrade and give up on individual liberties in favor of the abuses of the mob.*


*Nations can slow this process by taking on a deliberate program of educating their young in classic liberal principles.

 

[independentusa]

In a representative government, ultimately, classic liberal values can only sustain so far past the population giving up on them. There is no inherent reason to suppose that democracy will respect individual rights.

We have dramatically expanded the power and scope of government - each time justified because This Is Too Important. We've abused the power of government by turning it against domestic political opponents Because They Are Just So Bad or Because They Did It To Us.

We are creating - and feeding - the downward spiral.

THe question I have to ask of you then, is how far do individual rights extend. I was taught my rights extend until they violate your rights. That seems to be no longer the case with many right wingers. If I was to write what I think their definition of their rights are is that no one has the right to tell them what to do, even if their rights over ride my rights. So their right to not wear mask overrides my right to be healthy and free to move around safely is just one good idea of what I am writing about. Forty years ago mask wearing during an epidemic would not have been questioned and those who refused would have been shamed into doing so. Now right wingers want unlimited freedom, something that is not possible in a society, if we want to remain a society and not a jungle.

 

[independentusa]

It never was from the start. Democracy is majority rule, and being ruled over is obviously not compatible with freedom.

I would suggest that there is a lot more freedom in a democracy than in an autocratic government such as Russia and China have. In any society there will never be total and complete freedom to do as you want. Can yo mention any society that ever had total and complete freedom

 

[independentusa]

Let me say that I agree with you - particularly that last - I just don't think there is any law of human nature that is going to move things along in that direction. The demos has a long history of turning on individual rights.

I think we tend to assume that classic liberalism is connected to classic liberalisms' formulation of individual rights because we came up with them together. A look around the world will show you quite a few "democracies" where a liberal understanding of individual liberties is not respected.

Dems have been a lot more free than GOP. Look at the right to vote, which is being suppressed in every state controlled by the GOP right now. One of the major rights of a citizen in this country being made so hard for many, that their right to vote is nil. And I know Trumpsters want the right to make many people second class citizens.