Problems With Liberal Democracy

[BoredSysAdmin]

The Wiki article of Classic Liberalism contains "Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech."

Far cry from what we're seeing now.

It's interesting how actual liberal democracy differs from classical liberalism to the point that later much more closely resembles right-libertarianism.

The actual definition of liberal democracy aka Western democracy is as follows from wiki:

Liberal democracy, substantive democracy[1] or western democracy[2] is a form of government that combines the structure of a representative democracy with the principles of liberal political philosophy. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, universal suffrage, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people.

I also wonder if your comment was purposely misleading to detail this conversation.

 

[highfigh]

It's interesting how actual liberal democracy differs from classical liberalism to the point that later much more closely resembles right-libertarianism.

The actual definition of liberal democracy aka Western democracy is as follows from wiki:

Liberal democracy, substantive democracy[1] or western democracy[2] is a form of government that combines the structure of a representative democracy with the principles of liberal political philosophy. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, universal suffrage, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people.

I also wonder if your comment was purposely misleading to detail this conversation.

The difference shows it in theory and in practice- it's caused by the people operating in that system not following the ideas. People cause systems to sway back & forth- what was misleading?

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

The difference shows it in theory and in practice- it's caused by the people operating in that system not following the ideas. People cause systems to sway back & forth- what was misleading?

The thread title is liberal democracy. You've linked and mentioned the core ideals of an entirely different political system, namely "classic liberalism" [Later Neoliberalsm] which as I've mentioned is very different, mainly on Economic freedom. Nolan's chart would much closer align with the Libertarian [Center/Right] position. See the image below. Thus, I question if your post was purposely misdirecting.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The thread title is liberal democracy. You've linked and mentioned the core ideals of an entirely different political system, namely "classic liberalism" [Later Neoliberalsm] which as I've mentioned is very different, mainly on Economic freedom. Nolan's chart would much closer align with the Libertarian [Center/Right] position. See the image below. Thus, I question if your post was purposely misdirecting.
View attachment 63668

I would suggest that this chart is too simplistic to be useful. It implies that the further one goes in the direction of the arrows, the "freer" everyone is, personally or economically. What inevitably happens is that the freer a society is in either category, the more likely it is that some will find a way to leverage that freedom to restrict or impede the freedom of others.

 

[dlaloum]

The Wiki article of Classic Liberalism contains "Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech."

Far cry from what we're seeing now.

True "free markets" are directly opposed to "laissez-faire economics"... as true "free markets" (a term defined by Adam Smith) - specifically require a high level of regulation to ensure free and equal access to the market, and ensure the absence of distortions such as monopolies and oligopolies etc...
"laissez-faire economics" - basically removes all regulation and "government red tape" - removing all the barriers against monopolies, and thereby allowing monopolists and oligopolies to dominate the market and exclude smaller players through unfair competition.

The Neo-Liberalists (actually a far right wing appropriation of centrist and left wing terms), have appropriated terms such as "free market" and conflated them with "laissez-faire economics" to create a monster, which has demonstrably caused substantial damage to the world economies, and led to negative outcomes on pretty much all economic and social measures. - Monopolies basically only ever benefit the monopolist, everyone else loses.

 

[dlaloum]

I would suggest that this chart is too simplistic to be useful. It implies that the further one goes in the direction of the arrows, the "freer" everyone is, personally or economically. What inevitably happens is that the freer a society is in either category, the more likely it is that some will find a way to leverage that freedom to restrict or impede the freedom of others.

It is simplistic only in that it only covers two dimensions/variables - and the topic really requires far more than two dimensions!

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I would suggest that this chart is too simplistic to be useful. It implies that the further one goes in the direction of the arrows, the "freer" everyone is, personally or economically. What inevitably happens is that the freer a society is in either category, the more likely it is that some will find a way to leverage that freedom to restrict or impede the freedom of others.

The chart is very high level, and it doesn't imply anything. It merely generalizes and describes on a very basic level various political systems. Arrows and location on char don't mean people/businesses are more or less free, but instead, these arrows show ideas behind the political frameworks. For example:
Liberal and Libertarian frameworks promote personal freedoms and rights (like the right to an abortion for example) but have different and nearly opposed ideas on the economy - Liberal promotes tighter control and regulations. In contrast, Libertarian promotes less regulation and a free market.
I hope this clears up the confusion for you and mtrycrafts

 

[dlaloum]

The chart is very high level, and it doesn't imply anything. It merely generalizes and describes on a very basic level various political systems. Arrows and location on char don't mean people/businesses are more or less free, but instead, these arrows show ideas behind the political frameworks. For example:
Liberal and Libertarian frameworks promote personal freedoms and rights (like the right to an abortion for example) but have different and nearly opposed ideas on the economy - Liberal promotes tighter control and regulations. In contrast, Libertarian promotes less regulation and a free market.
I hope this clears up the confusion for you and mtrycrafts

Linking libertarianism and Adam Smith's free market, is a common misunderstanding of what he meant by "free market":

This is a worthwhile read:
We should look closely at what Adam Smith actually believed | Aeon Essays

 

[GO-NAD!]

The chart is very high level, and it doesn't imply anything. It merely generalizes and describes on a very basic level various political systems. Arrows and location on char don't mean people/businesses are more or less free, but instead, these arrows show ideas behind the political frameworks. For example:
Liberal and Libertarian frameworks promote personal freedoms and rights (like the right to an abortion for example) but have different and nearly opposed ideas on the economy - Liberal promotes tighter control and regulations. In contrast, Libertarian promotes less regulation and a free market.
I hope this clears up the confusion for you and mtrycrafts

Oh, I wasn't confused by it. I just think it generalizes to such an extent as to be not terribly useful. Should be noted that Nolan was a libertarian politician, so his views were informed by his philosophical views,

 

[highfigh]

Chicago, facing a half billion dollar deficit now plans to build 'Bidenville'......

Chicago Mayor Signs $26 Million Contract to Build Migrant Camps

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed a $26 million contract with security firm Garda World to build migrant camps in the city.

www.breitbart.com

and another Democrat run 'Dung hole' .........

Plans for Tuesday’s vandalism were an open secret on social media, and the destruction was documented in videos through the night

Eddie Irizarry’s supporters had nothing to do with the unrest, said Interim Police Commissioner John Stanford.

www.inquirer.com

At this point, $26M doesn't even sound like a large amount.

 

[GO-NAD!]

https://x.com/Alacritous_/status/1725270939204465031?s=20

For those who don't wish to go on Twitter:

Q: In your own words, how would you describe libertarians?
A: House cats. They are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand.

 

[highfigh]

https://x.com/Alacritous_/status/1725270939204465031?s=20

Who is John Spaulding?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Who is John Spaulding?

Dunno. I can't argue with his definition though.

 

[3db]

Sorry to see that you have many of the same problems as we do in the US. I hope it never reaches our level of crapulence.

Some of the problems that anger me most about the current situation in the US:

- Government is supposed to ensure safety- FAIL Agreed
- The media have too much influence on government, elections, general attitudes. If politicians actually represented the people instead of their pocket books, then media influence would be of very little consequence
- Social Media is a scourge Agreed.
- Many people don't give a rat's ass about others, so they rob, beat, steal from them and murder. Preying on others has become a national pastime. Many of these people have fallen through the safety net and cast aside by society and again can be blamed on the career politician whose single goal is to remain elected without looking after the people. I call that political greed.
- Politics has become a crap show. Has become a crap show? Its been a crap show from the very beginning. Instead of parties working together to make a better country, they simply act as opposition and impede a lot of constructive policies. Politics brings the asshole out in people since its inception.

See my replies in red text embedded in your response

 

[highfigh]

See my replies in red text embedded in your response

Absolutely, although people who held office were referred to as 'statesmen'. While it's likely that they were called that by members of their own party, they couldn't use political office as a career and to rake in the money via lobbying, the way they can now. It was said that political office was part of public service but now, 'service' has a completely different meaning- we're being 'serviced' by politicians and by that, I mean 'rogered'.

 

[3db]

https://x.com/Alacritous_/status/1725270939204465031?s=20

For those who don't wish to go on Twitter:

Q: In your own words, how would you describe libertarians?
A: House cats. They are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand.

 

[Mikado463]

Who is John Spaulding?

Billy Wilson's brother-in-law ......