h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"So we're agreed that defence of democracy was not what WWII was about ?"

Er, no. It was clearly (at least from the perspective of France, Britain and the United States) a defence of (their) democracies from Fascist aggression and it clearly succeeded. From the Soviet perspective it was a defence of a Communist "motherland" from Fascist aggression that not only succeeded but extended Soviet de-facto control as well as the Leninist system throughout much of Eastern Europe so, in the sense, from the Soviet perspective you can argue that they were fighting for their leaders rather than personal liberty.

I'd have said it was probably a lot more about nationalism and patriotism than democracy. After all, the Poland before it was invaded - the event which triggered Britain and France to join the war - was a dictatorship with the aim of 'moral sanitation' of society.

>> Classic "End of History" mythologising
Just because an argument can be given a pithy label does not make it wrong. China has more democracy now than it did in the 1960s and if its per capita prosperity continues to increase it will have more democracy in 20 years time.

"Just because an argument can be given a pithy label does not make it wrong. China has more democracy now than it did in the 1960s and if its per capita prosperity continues to increase it will have more democracy in 20 years time."

I don't have a problem with the "pithy label", I have a problem with the entire philosophy which is demonstrably wrong.

China does not have "more democracy" since the 1960s, it has more civic freedoms and those are not the same thing. Civic freedoms means what you can and can't do within the law, democracy means the right of the population to choose their government. The Chinese clearly have more civic freedoms than they did under the despotic Mao regime but they have no more democracy, despite the sort of long-term economic changes and booming economy that is supposed to give them that very thing according to the abovementioned theory. Instead of challenging the CP's hedgemony (as wealthy Chinese are "supposed" to do) they are working within the system which is currently working out okay for them - the Chinese CP has worked out that as long as you don't actively persecute the business class they won't work against you.

>'d have said it was probably a lot more about nationalism and patriotism than democracy. After all, the Poland before it was invaded - the event which triggered Britain and France to join the war - was a dictatorship with the aim of 'moral sanitation' of society.

--

Well, the Sancja movement called for the "moral sanitation" of Poland, yes, but that pretty much just meant ending corruption and minimising inflation rather than the sort of quasi-fascism it suggests. It was also a coalition philosophy consisting of leftist, rightist and centrist elements so pretty moderate by European standards of the time and whilst not a multi-party system hardly the sort of monolithic entity we tend to associate with the term dicatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanacja

It was certainly better than the two opposing extremist governments that ended up dividing Poland between them in 1939.

Plus we only went to war on Poland's behalf because we had agreed that the line had to be drawn somewhere and Poland was that line. Waiting longer would have meant a more powerful Germany to deal with.

I would not give half a guinea to live under one form of government other than another. It is of no moment to the happiness of an individual.

Samuel Johnson
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/samuel_johnson.html

I think democracy is overemphasized. I believe that the important thing is that there is a balance of power between different enfranchised groups. Pure democracy is okay for smaller groups where people know each other. Some small cities in New England are pure democracies.

In large groups, pure democracy unchecked would be dangerous. Immediately after 9/11, it would have been easy to get a large majority of Americans to vote for nuclear war against Afghanistan. That's an extreme model.

One danger with democracy is that voters with little contact with the actual workings of government can vote to do anything without having to grapple with the consequences until it's too late. The State of Oregon, my home state, keeps having due in part to direct democracy. It's an odd state of people who hate taxes but they like social welfare programs. It's also easy to get referendums on the ballot. So now it's a state that can't raise taxes, but has moved to something very much like socialized medicine. That's resulted in the state with some severe fiscal troubles. The state has had to furlough police and teachers when money has been tight.

I don't think democracy is what's important. I think what's important is to have a nation of laws, respect for rights, a stake in the system, and being able to influence the system in some way. As I observe society as an employee of a county government (I work in a county with between 100,000 and 200,000), the voters aren't usually the ones who make the decisions about who our elected leaders are. Positions are subtly influenced by people who can virtually appoint their successors, and by people who can financially support campaigns.

As an aside, I think we'd be better off in this country if Congress, the Cabinet, and the president were appointed by lot.

I won't kill for democracy, but I will fight to preserve our rather odd form of government and society, even if it could be better.

Well put

I'd support any system that emphasised the need for government to serve the people rather than making the people jump to the government's tune.

Great to see you around again Two Bit