[Crantag]

The point of liberal democracy is to live in peace. Liberal democracies do not fight wars or have any serious conflicts between each other because we know how to resolve problems by talking and discussing and not by opression and supression.

Okay, T. Freidman (the Lexus and the Olive Tree).

It also could be because liberal democracies are by and large advanced countries, and these typically don't go to war with one another, but rather prefer to 'intervene' in the affairs of poor countries.

Thomas Friedman claimed that no two countries with a McDonald's had ever gone to war with one another. I'm pretty sure he wanted to colonize Iraq with McDonald's and Walmart.

I think the line Rawls raises is pretty damn selective.

[annatar1914]

I would say communism has a darker history in terms of sheer bloodshed.

No denying that there has been a bloody history involved. The Revolutionaries were still men of their times, born for the most part in the later half of the 1800's, and when they took over they treated the Russian lands much as King Leopold did his Congo Free State, with a European Colonialists' attitude towards their subjects.

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914 Rome ruled the same way and lasted longer than the USA will. It seems Republics eventually fall to despotism.

I think we're close to the point in parallel to the Western experience, reached with the Roman Gracchi brothers;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi

[wat0n]

It is still in the world, so yes the United States is not exceptionally immune to the general historical forces. However, it has lasted as long as it has because it has so far up until recently mastered the forces of Ochlocracy.

Of course it's not. The whole point of the not-so-democratic provisions of the Constitution is precisely to make it harder to devolve into an ochlocracy.

It should be noted too that 19th century US was a lot worse in this regard than current America. For instance, clientelism was a feature for most of that era.

@annatar1914 Rome ruled the same way and lasted longer than the USA will. It seems Republics eventually fall to despotism.

Ochlocracy is the stage that predates despotism if you believe in anacyclosis.

[Rugoz]

''Liberal Democracies'' have caused more bloodshed than any other form of government since their inception, and are the destruction of the very societies they take root in. The only thing that truly lives in peace in a liberal democracy is the money makers ability to suck the life out people in an orderly and peaceful fashion, lulling the citizens into a state of civic catatonia while allowing them their petty vicious pleasures.

Funny. I have never lived in a low to medium-income country. However, the people I know who did, tell me that not having to worry about money is one of the main benefits of coming here. Complaining about decadence is itself a sign of decadence.

Of course that has nothing to do with liberal democracy per se.

[jimjam]

trump is disintegrating before our eyes. Morphing from crazy like a fox to full blown lunatic. His brain is being fried. Simply compare Donald's looney tune "debate" of 2020 to 2016 when he outclassed Hillary and ACTUALLY ANSWERED QUESTIONS.

One of my favorites is when trump was asked about his piddling $750 tax payments and he answered that he paid "millions". Then, asked if he would show us the returns that would prove this he retorted something to the effect that it's all coming out very soon. Sure Donald and BTY the cow really did jump over the moon

[blackjack21]

No denying that there has been a bloody history involved. The Revolutionaries were still men of their times, born for the most part in the later half of the 1800's, and when they took over they treated the Russian lands much as King Leopold did his Congo Free State, with a European Colonialists' attitude towards their subjects.

In a way, but nobody would call either the communists or King Leopold liberal democrats. Leopold was strictly exploiting resources. Russia was transforming into an industrial power, where industrialists had serfs working in factories. It was a model that could not last with the rapid onset of industrialization, much like the violent overthrow of slavery in the United States.

It should be noted too that 19th century US was a lot worse in this regard than current America. For instance, clientelism was a feature for most of that era.

Cough cough, Bush/Clinton cough Bush/Clinton cough cough. How did you watch that debate last night and not see Chris Wallace as working for the establishment for the establishment's ends? I mean the entire tax question directed only to Trump was totally out of order, the NYTimes either illegally received Trump's returns or lied about illegally receiving Trump's returns (from establishment bureaucrats), Biden released his just before the debate and then Wallace pounces on Trump... That is politics by personal relationships writ large. It's in fact why people do not trust the system anymore. Imagine how quickly the US government's operations would degrade if we just fired everyone that graduated from either Yale or Harvard. There is certainly clientelism today. That's why you see Comey, Fitzgerald, and Mueller working against George W. Bush and Donald Trump. It's unmistakable if you're looking for it.

The whole point of the not-so-democratic provisions of the Constitution is precisely to make it harder to devolve into an ochlocracy.

Yes, and that's why we wouldn't see a senate confirmation hearing of a SCOTUS candidate then like we see now, because the Senate was not democratically elected in the 19th Century either. They were appointed by the states. So the non-democratic justice was confirmed by the non-democratic senate. Now we have a democratic senate, which has degraded the body in my view.

To get things back on topic, that's why I think the debates last night were interesting. Wallace joined the fray on behalf of Biden to protect Biden from Trump. Wallace, supposedly the journalist, didn't ask the toughest questions. That fell to Trump. It was Trump who pressed Biden on whether Biden would pack the court. Biden wouldn't answer, and Wallace cut off Trump rather than demanding an answer from Biden. That's the establishment game, and if you play it, you lose. Trump didn't play it. He won, but he won ugly as it is the only way to win with these people.

Thomas Friedman claimed that no two countries with a McDonald's had ever gone to war with one another. I'm pretty sure he wanted to colonize Iraq with McDonald's and Walmart.

Yeah, but I'm guessing Thomas Friedman didn't spend much time in the Balkans in the 1990s. I'm pretty sure both Israel and Lebanon had McDonalds. I know Russia and Georgia had McDonalds when Russia invaded Abkhazia. Panama had McDonalds when the US invaded during the first Bush administration. Basically, Thomas Friedman wants you to ponder, come up empty, and think, "You know?? He's right!" But he's not right.

[Rancid]

trump is disintegrating before our eyes. Morphing from crazy like a fox to full blown lunatic. His brain is being fried. Simply compare Donald's looney tune "debate" of 2020 to 2016 when he outclassed Hillary and ACTUALLY ANSWERED QUESTIONS.

One of my favorites is when trump was asked about his piddling $750 tax payments and he answered that he paid "millions". Then, asked if he would show us the returns that would prove this he retorted something to the effect that it's all coming out very soon. Sure Donald and BTY the cow really did jump over the moon

Maybe, but his base is still as rabid as ever, and there's enough of them to get him re-elected. Many Americans want a president that's a basically an asshole.

[annatar1914]

@wat0n ;

Of course it's not. The whole point of the not-so-democratic provisions of the Constitution is precisely to make it harder to devolve into an ochlocracy.

So you and I, with myself being a Socialist/Statist, agree with that.

It should be noted too that 19th century US was a lot worse in this regard than current America. For instance, clientelism was a feature for most of that era.

I would say we still are saddled with ''clientelism'' in a more pernicious and pervasive form, worse because it is more subtle.

[Patrickov]

Many Americans want a president that's a basically an asshole.

Given that the office requires considerable determination to get things done, it is natural that most who can get their job done are assholes.

Unfortunately it doesn't mean only assholes are up to the job, and not all assholes are up to the job either.

[annatar1914]

@Rugoz ;

Funny. I have never lived in a low to medium-income country. However, the people I know who did, tell me that not having to worry about money is one of the main benefits of coming here. Complaining about decadence is itself a sign of decadence.

Complaining about decadence is a sign that even a reprobate like me has the moral sense to notice the decline, so no doubt my betters in that regard certainly do notice even more so.

Of course that has nothing to do with liberal democracy per se.

Actually I think it has everything to do with it; ''the lamb and two wolves deciding on what's for dinner this evening....''

[annatar1914]

@blackjack21 , in our excursus on which system is worse, ''Liberal Democracy'' or ''Communism'', you added;

In a way, but nobody would call either the communists or King Leopold liberal democrats.

This is true I'll admit, but then again I suspect neither one of us is either; I for one am rather illiberal.

Leopold was strictly exploiting resources. Russia was transforming into an industrial power, where industrialists had serfs working in factories. It was a model that could not last with the rapid onset of industrialization, much like the violent overthrow of slavery in the United States.

And that last part begs the question in my mind; with that violent overthrow by President Lincoln, some aver that he put an end to the country of the American Revolution, others say he saved it. I guess it doesn't matter, as both he and Tsar Alexander did the right thing, Tsar Alexander freeing the Serfs in 1861, and President Lincoln in 1865 freeing the slaves and winning the civil war.

This all puts the 1st Presidential debate of 2020 into perspective; people haven't learned a damn thing.

[Patrickov]

''Liberal Democracies'' have caused more bloodshed than any other form of government since their inception, and are the destruction of the very societies they take root in.

Actually both of you are correct, because the two statements cover different scopes.

Member JohnRawls should have added "among ourselves" at the end of the statement "The point of liberal democracy is to live in peace." To me, that is what matters. Violence against my enemies (who only listen to violence) is an entirely different thing.

The only thing that truly lives in peace in a liberal democracy is the money makers ability to suck the life out people in an orderly and peaceful fashion, lulling the citizens into a state of civic catatonia while allowing them their petty vicious pleasures.

Again, to me, having something done in peaceful fashion is at least better than getting something done not in peaceful fashion, if no better alternative is available, or if the said act suits my needs.

[wat0n]

@wat0n ;

So you and I, with myself being a Socialist/Statist, agree with that.

I guess so, and so do the Founding Fathers, the Enlightenment's political philosophers (e.g. Montesquieu) and so on - that is, so do liberals in general.

Yes, and that's why we wouldn't see a senate confirmation hearing of a SCOTUS candidate then like we see now, because the Senate was not democratically elected in the 19th Century either. They were appointed by the states. So the non-democratic justice was confirmed by the non-democratic senate. Now we have a democratic senate, which has degraded the body in my view.

I don't know if democratically electing Senators has truly degraded the body - after all they were usually appointed by the legislature of each State IIRC. I think the key lies n that it's bicameral and with radically different electoral systems for each.

Cough cough, Bush/Clinton cough Bush/Clinton cough cough. How did you watch that debate last night and not see Chris Wallace as working for the establishment for the establishment's ends? I mean the entire tax question directed only to Trump was totally out of order, the NYTimes either illegally received Trump's returns or lied about illegally receiving Trump's returns (from establishment bureaucrats), Biden released his just before the debate and then Wallace pounces on Trump... That is politics by personal relationships writ large. It's in fact why people do not trust the system anymore. Imagine how quickly the US government's operations would degrade if we just fired everyone that graduated from either Yale or Harvard. There is certainly clientelism today. That's why you see Comey, Fitzgerald, and Mueller working against George W. Bush and Donald Trump. It's unmistakable if you're looking for it.

...

To get things back on topic, that's why I think the debates last night were interesting. Wallace joined the fray on behalf of Biden to protect Biden from Trump. Wallace, supposedly the journalist, didn't ask the toughest questions. That fell to Trump. It was Trump who pressed Biden on whether Biden would pack the court. Biden wouldn't answer, and Wallace cut off Trump rather than demanding an answer from Biden. That's the establishment game, and if you play it, you lose. Trump didn't play it. He won, but he won ugly as it is the only way to win with these people.

I would say we still are saddled with ''clientelism'' in a more pernicious and pervasive form, worse because it is more subtle.

Some measure of clientelism will always be there, as it's exactly what political appointments are. The difference though is that back in the 19th century, the range of positions that could be filled that way was a lot larger than today, and with little controls.

And of course lobbying also still existed back then - in fact, it's exactly the era that has given this activity its name.

[XogGyux]

WOULD YOU SHUT UP?

[annatar1914]

@wat0n ;

I guess so, and so do the Founding Fathers, the Enlightenment's political philosophers (e.g. Montesquieu) and so on - that is, so do liberals in general.

Although they did draw from the pre-modern history of the illiberal republics of the Greco-Roman states for inspiration, they all having had a Classical education. Perhaps you're shading the distinction a little bit, at least in my opinion.

Some measure of clientelism will always be there, as it's exactly what political appointments are. The difference though is that back in the 19th century, the range of positions that could be filled that way was a lot larger than today, and with little controls.

On the other hand, it helps prevent a permanent Deep State of unelected Bureaucrats from running things too.

And of course lobbying also still existed back then - in fact, it's exactly the era that has given this activity its name.

Lobbying is as old as politics IMO.

[wat0n]

@wat0n ;



Although they did draw from the pre-modern history of the illiberal republics of the Greco-Roman states for inspiration, they all having had a Classical education. Perhaps you're shading the distinction a little bit, at least in my opinion.

Oh, they did for sure. Indeed, they also criticized how their political systems worked. For instance, there was criticism of how the Senates formed by members that served for life were eventually overrun by the lower chambers that were elected by the people. That's where the idea of having term limits for Senators comes from.

On the other hand, it helps prevent a permanent Deep State of unelected Bureaucrats from running things too.

It does. That's why some appointments need to remain political.

Lobbying is as old as politics IMO.

It is indeed, and it's actually not inherently illegitimate either. But there needs to be transparency on who lobbies whom and for what purpose.

[Crantag]

Yeah, but I'm guessing Thomas Friedman didn't spend much time in the Balkans in the 1990s. I'm pretty sure both Israel and Lebanon had McDonalds. I know Russia and Georgia had McDonalds when Russia invaded Abkhazia. Panama had McDonalds when the US invaded during the first Bush administration. Basically, Thomas Friedman wants you to ponder, come up empty, and think, "You know?? He's right!" But he's not right.

Yeah i meant to ridicule Friedman. I hate that guy. He is full blown neoliberal globalist propagandist, and he went neocon for the Iraq War like a lot of his ilk.

[Rancid]

Given that the office requires considerable determination to get things done, it is natural that most who can get their job done are assholes.

Unfortunately it doesn't mean only assholes are up to the job, and not all assholes are up to the job either.

Maybe but being a complete asshole isn't a prerequisite for being a good leader. Also, there's a huge myth that you have to be an ass to be a good leader. This is not true at all. All the good leaders at the company I work for, are not assholes. Ask Navy Seals if they'd rather have an asshole that is the best performer or a very trustworthy non-asshole that is a little less skilled than the asshole. They will pick the latter, because they are better for team unity and trust. When you have unity and trust, you get results.

Assholes are destructive to the cohesion of any team or organization. Trump is an unqualified rat with no backbone. He has no principals or values, he is honor-less scum that moves with the wind and only believes in himself. He's not a good leader, he is the worst type of man there can be, because he's not a real man. He's a bitch. It's baffling that so many so called grown men, who would claim to be men of values and honor would vote for this weasel.

I reject the idea that being an asshole is a sign of a "good leader". I think lots of Trump voters believe this, and it's because most people don't understand what a good leader is. They think it's gordon gecko, it's not. They think it's the bullshit they see in Hollywood movies. It's not.

There are a lot of so called men, that are letting themselves be fooled by this weasel called Trump.

[Beren]

his base is still as rabid as ever, and there's enough of them to get him re-elected.

No, there isn't, his mere base would be enough to get him elected governor of Texas at best.