Does Democracy ever not degenerate from its conservative morality?

[River Ape]

There may be something to be said for selection of personnel (leaders) by democracy, but in the long run only ruin can come from the making of Laws on the basis of democracy. The Laws that make for a healthy society derive from Nature (which some personify as God). These Laws derive from the unchanging habits, motives, and proclivities of Mankind. Throughout the ages, the Prophets have proclaimed the Laws which Mankind should follow. Those Prophets who guessed about right (like Mohammed pbuh) have been honoured by seeing their adherents flourish and grow prodigiously in number. Those who guess wrong have been forgotten. The Biblical history of the Jews is of a people who prospered when they adhered to the words of their Prophets, and were punished when they strayed.

My irreligious belief in the theory of evolution and the survival of the fittest tells me that we should shape society in a mould prescribed by the Prophets.

Democracy tells people that they can construct their own Laws -- which is not far off from telling them that they can decide what is Good and Evil. It has even permitted them to create a religion of their own, which they call Human Rights.

Democracy tells people also that any majority can dictate to any minority, so that we are fenced in my more and more Laws (as nietzchefan complains) -- an intrusive and repressive overgovernance foisted on society by People Who Know Best. The Prophets generally look to a selfgovernance from within based upon belief and conviction, and exercised by Free Will. Without this, I doubt any society can long prosper.

 

[Norsefire]

I think Kadark hit the nail on the head. To what extent do we take "freedom"? There have to be limits, for the sake of cultural preservation and some level of conformity, otherwise there is little point in society, government, and country.

 

[Kadark]

There may be something to be said for selection of personnel (leaders) by democracy, but in the long run only ruin can come from the making of Laws on the basis of democracy. The Laws that make for a healthy society derive from Nature (which some personify as God). These Laws derive from the unchanging habits, motives, and proclivities of Mankind. Throughout the ages, the Prophets have proclaimed the Laws which Mankind should follow. Those Prophets who guessed about right (like Mohammed pbuh) have been honoured by seeing their adherents flourish and grow prodigiously in number. Those who guess wrong have been forgotten. The Biblical history of the Jews is of a people who prospered when they adhered to the words of their Prophets, and were punished when they strayed.

My irreligious belief in the theory of evolution and the survival of the fittest tells me that we should shape society in a mould prescribed by the Prophets.

Democracy tells people that they can construct their own Laws -- which is not far off from telling them that they can decide what is Good and Evil. It has even permitted them to create a religion of their own, which they call Human Rights.

Democracy tells people also that any majority can dictate to any minority, so that we are fenced in my more and more Laws (as nietzchefan complains) -- an intrusive and repressive overgovernance foisted on society by People Who Know Best. The Prophets generally look to a selfgovernance from within based upon belief and conviction, and exercised by Free Will. Without this, I doubt any society can long prosper.

Marvelously worded.

I think Kadark hit the nail on the head. To what extent do we take "freedom"? There have to be limits, for the sake of cultural preservation and some level of conformity, otherwise there is little point in society, government, and country.

I agree. Let me share a few quotes from Mayer Rothschild, arguably the most influential man to have ever lived.

"Only a despotic ruler can rule the Mob efficiently because without absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilization, which was carried out NOT by the masses, but by their guide, whosoever that person might be. The moment the Mob seizes FREEDOM in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy.

Rothschild also reasoned that by using such words as Freedom and Liberty, the Goyim could be stirred up to such a pitch of patriotic fervor that they could be made to fight even against the laws of God and nature. He added, "And for this reason after we obtain control, the very NAME OF GOD will be erased from the 'Lexicon of Life'."

Kadark the Blade

 

[Pandaemoni]

I think Kadark hit the nail on the head. To what extent do we take "freedom"? There have to be limits, for the sake of cultural preservation and some level of conformity, otherwise there is little point in society, government, and country.

I don't thing the "point" of society, government and country is cultural preservation. We have governments to provide us witha greater degree to stability and certainty than we would have without them. Protection against "the devil we don't know"—such as foeign invaders—is part of that (and as much as the government might be "the devil we know", rather than a benefactor, living with "the devil you know" tends be stable and provide a certain predictability).

I do not even want my tax dollars be used to defend a "culture" because that is not a valuable service. It's like trying to protect your language from intrusions by foreign words and phrases...you can do it if you want (the french do) but it just adds a layer of bureaucracy to things and leaves your language rigid and slow to adapt.

Culture, like language, is best when it is free to adapt and change.

Democracy tells people also that any majority can dictate to any minority, so that we are fenced in my more and more Laws (as nietzchefan complains)

From a game theory perspective, that's not entirely correct. Democracy says the majority can make laws, but nearly every individual in the majority knows that, from time to time, they are going to find themselves in the minority on certain issues. Because almost everyone knows this, the "majority" (i.e., "almost everyone") has an incentive to limit the power of majorities so that certain rights are protected even from the will of that majority.

In other words, it can be rational for majorities to adopt anti-majoritarian positions, which is why most nations have enshrined minority rights into law.

 

[joepistole]

The premise upon which this thread is based is fatally flawed. Democracy begins as a liberal idea. Democracy begins with liberalism...going against the grain. It is under the rule of dictators, kings, emperors and such that we see moral degradation. I suggest some reading of history would be helpful here.

 

[Pandaemoni]

The premise upon which this thread is based is fatally flawed. Democracy begins as a liberal idea. Democracy begins with liberalism...going against the grain. It is under the rule of dictators, kings, emperors and such that we see moral degradation. I suggest some reading of history would be helpful here.

I suspect the point is desi sees recent cultural developments in existing democracies as increasingly decadent and sees that happening all over the place. If that surmise is correct, there are some issues with that.

First, all the current "decadence" is likely the product not of different democracies acting independently, but of "western culture" in general, so each population is influencing the others to varying degrees.

Second, to decide that we are increasingly immoral one has to make a series of plainly debatable value judgments. It's very clear to me, at least, that in the U.S. minorities are attaining a position that is increasingly closer to social equality (though I would not claim they are there just yet). Surely that reflects an *increase* in moral integrity. On the other hand, today the average 9 year old can now tell you what blowjob is in painful detail, which was not the case when I was a kid, and homosexuality is now largely acceptable even in members of Congress. Sexual precocity is on the rise in a significant way and there is an openness to sexuality that would have shocked people 50 years ago. I can see how some might see that as "immoral", but I personally think there is no moral dimension to it at all. It's no more immoral for a person to be gay, to me, than it would be for him to eat a hamburger. For others being gay is immoral, and eating hamburger not; for still others (like many Hindus) being gay is okay, eating hamburgers is immoral!

 

[joepistole]

I suspect the point is desi sees recent cultural developments in existing democracies as increasingly decadent and sees that happening all over the place. If that surmise is correct, there are some issues with that.

First, all the current "decadence" is likely the product not of different democracies acting independently, but of "western culture" in general, so each population is influencing the others to varying degrees.

Second, to decide that we are increasingly immoral one has to make a series of plainly debatable value judgments. It's very clear to me, at least, that in the U.S. minorities are attaining a position that is increasingly closer to social equality (though I would not claim they are there just yet). Surely that reflects an *increase* in moral integrity. On the other hand, today the average 9 year old can now tell you what blowjob is in painful detail, which was not the case when I was a kid, and homosexuality is now largely acceptable even in members of Congress. Sexual precocity is on the rise in a significant way and there is an openness to sexuality that would have shocked people 50 years ago. I can see how some might see that as "immoral", but I personally think there is no moral dimension to it at all. It's no more immoral for a person to be gay, to me, than it would be for him to eat a hamburger. For others being gay is immoral, and eating hamburger not; for still others (like many Hindus) being gay is okay, eating hamburgers is immoral!

Very well said Pand. When we look back at history, durring periods of facism, monarchy and dictatorships we have been the most immoral of times in human history by any measure.

 

[River Ape]

It is under the rule of dictators, kings, emperors and such that we see moral degradation.

If this were the case, the world would have been in a truly woeful condition throughout almost all history! There have undoubtedly been times, often revolutionary times, when nations were energised and "got it together"; and other times when things fell apart.

Let me tell you a story. Many years ago, a relative who served with the British occupation forces after WWII reported on a conversation with an old German who had lived through both world wars. The German was no apologist for Hitler, for the Fuhrer had brought about the ruin of his country.

The (democratic) Weimar Republic, he said, had been sickeningly decadent, a squalid period of German history, but after the Nazis had come to power something wonderful began to happen. Throughout all ages, even among the writings of the ancient Greeks, men had despaired of the younger generation. But in the late 1930s, he had a revelation that the young people of his country were better than his own generation had been. They were better fed, healthier in mind and body, more self-confident, better mannered, better educated, more idealistic, more generous, better citizens. Thanks to the Hitler Youth, and other NSDAP-supported organisations, the pride they felt for the Fatherland translated into a pride they felt in themselves.

I felt a great joy in this moral regeneration, the old German had said, so that I did not want the young to share my own cynicism and doubts.

Things are never simple!

 

[Foxer]

It seems like in countries where Democracy is the law things tend to become looser and looser morally until bad things happen. Is this accurate? If so is it inevitable?

Democracy does not have to do much with the morality of a country, but the fact that a country is founded with a Democratic form of government probably means that the founders were already moral. Because a Democracy is based on principles from the Bible, but does not have very much control of the morality of it's people. I think that it is inevitable that a country is going to become looser morally. Look at every other country in history. Eventually they fall due to immorality. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Democracy does not have to do much with the morality of a country, but the fact that a country is founded with a Democratic form of government probably means that the founders were already moral. Because a Democracy is based on principles from the Bible, but does not have very much control of the morality of it's people. I think that it is inevitable that a country is going to become looser morally. Look at every other country in history. Eventually they fall due to immorality. It's just a matter of time.

What countries fell because of looser morality? Rome fell, according to Gibbon, because it went from pagan morality to a particular Christian morality. Countries fall for a variety of reasons, I think "look at every other country in history" is beyond being an overstatement.

In what sense does Democracy come from the Bible? The Iroquois were a democracy well before they'd ever heard of the Bible (and some of the founding fathers studied its government, with the suggestion amongst many that the Iroquois confederation had an influence on the structure of modern U.S. government). The Greeks had democracy before Jesus was even born. The Hebrews and early Christians had no democracies that I know of, they took over the Roman Empire, and then generally went the "monarchy" route. That is not an attack on Christianity, but the fact that "democracy is good" does not mean that the Bible therefore advocated it. If the Bible did support it, it did it in a subtle way--so subtle that Christians failed to notice it for about 1600-1700 years.

 

[Sciencelovah]

During my academic period, the exam result is almost always follow this normal distribution profile:

That's why I do not believe in democracy. Majority are always wrong. Shall I
suppose to follow wrong ones? :shrug:

Democracy leads to more freedom and hence loose standard (freesex, public
sex, swinging, drunk, drugs, etc.). Most likely human behavior are no better
than animal. Some are worse.

Someone here mentioned about the positive impact of democracy, namely
increasing welfare. That could be true, but the question here is about denigration
of moral, not welfare. In welfare aspect, however, one must check whether
the equality is increasing or decreasing with democracy.

 

[iceaura]

It is under the rule of dictators, kings, emperors and such that we see moral degradation.
”
If this were the case, the world would have been in a truly woeful condition throughout almost all history!

You noticed.

But in the late 1930s, he had a revelation that the young people of his country were better than his own generation had been. They were better fed, healthier in mind and body, more self-confident, better mannered, better educated, more idealistic, more generous, better citizens.

That was a product of democracy, of course - it was perverted later. So we have another counter example to the OP.

In the German case, the sign that it was all going to hell was when the democracy was taken away.

Look at every other country in history. Eventually they fall due to immorality.

England didn't. Russia didn't. Italy didn't.

But: 1) all empires fall, including democratic ones 2) successful empires - the kind that are noticed when they fall - create wealth and freedom in their subjects. 3) Wealthy, free people tend to do more of what they want to do, offending the pious and righteous 4) So whenever an empire is noticed as it falls, there will be immoralities galore to blame the fall on.

The people who dislike democracy because it generates freedom, wealth, and consequent immorality, always seem to imagine that the Caesar under which everyone would live a moral life would enforce a morality they favor. It is unlikely. The Caesar will have plans of his own, and if the new morality is to speak Swedish and wear your underwear on the outside of your clothes, that is what you will do as a newly moral person.

Meanwhile, if you pay attention you will notice that in your newly moral authoritarian society the wealthy and free at the top are still lacking in morals.

Somewhere along the line it may occur to you that systems of morality which require poverty and misery and oppression to enforce, and are inevitably violated wholesale by anyone with the wealth and freedom to do so, have something wrong with them.

 

[Simon Anders]

During my academic period, the exam result is almost always follow this normal distribution profile:

That's why I do not believe in democracy. Majority are always wrong. Shall I
suppose to follow wrong ones? :shrug:

Democracy leads to more freedom and hence loose standard (freesex, public
sex, swinging, drunk, drugs, etc.). Most likely human behavior are no better
than animal. Some are worse.

Someone here mentioned about the positive impact of democracy, namely
increasing welfare. That could be true, but the question here is about denigration
of moral, not welfare. In welfare aspect, however, one must check whether
the equality is increasing or decreasing with democracy.

Ignoring the grammar of the portion in bold, the rather odd implication is that if you let some people have a lot of power they are no longer human. Saying that humans are ' no better than animal' in no way at all makes it clear that any form of government is better or worse. Dictators and oligharchies have acted incredibly immorally.

As far as your strange notions of welfare. Taking care of the people in a country is a moral act. Some people think it is a good thing, morally. Others do not care, but the least they can do is acknowledge that it is a moral issue.

 

[Pandaemoni]

During my academic period, the exam result is almost always follow this normal distribution profile.

What does that have to do with policy? First off, the majority is not "always wrong." As any voter what 2+2= and most of the time you will get "4" as an answer. If you give the average voter information about military threats against his nation, and he'll favor increasing domestic security. People's responses tend to be rational in that way.

The mean result on the bell curve is not always halfway between the best possible answer and the worst—most wrong—possible answer. Take a look at most exams again, and you'll find the same thing. You might get a normal distribution, but the mean won't be be stuck at 50% of the test correct. It might be stuck at 75% or 80%.

In part that's why democracies tend towards republics because issues are complex and educating the voters on all of them fully is hard. Educating them about a particular candidate's education and philosophy towards approaching problems is easier, and we can be more confident that the average voter will select someone reasonably good policy problems than we'd be if the voters voted on each issue individually. In essense, the voters select an expert to then go answer the hard questions on their behalf.

Besides that, what the alternative? Any individual chosen at random is just as likely to be wring as the voters as a whole, and the variance of his answers is likely to be fr higher. You can choose an expert who knows more than average, but the fact that he or she is expert today doesn't mean he or she still will be an expert in 20 years. Representative democracy is a system where we select experts to govern and then have the option of replacing them with new experts periodically.

It seems to me that representative democracy is the worst possible way to run a country, except for all the others.

 

[Simon Anders]

They were better fed, healthier in mind and body, more self-confident, better mannered, better educated, more idealistic, more generous, better citizens. Thanks to the Hitler Youth, and other NSDAP-supported organisations, the pride they felt for the Fatherland translated into a pride they felt in themselves.

1) they were idealistic but a number of their ideals were horrendous.
2) they were more self-confident but this self-confidence was founded on poor ideas - some racist - and led to many problems.
3) they may have been more generous to other Aryans but they were less generous to non-Aryans and those who did not conform - for example those Germans who listened to jazz or were artistic, etc.
4) 'better citizens' could easily be translated into better robots. Their self-hatred led to an inability to ask important questions and respect their own reactions to things. Doing what you are told does not make you a better citizen. The child of a slave owner is not a better person if he, unlike his brother, views the black slaves as animals.
5) This is a bit of a repeat but it follows the repeated poor logic of your post. The pride they felt in the FAtherland was a misplaced pride as the acts of this Fatherland were already showing before the war. Further having pride in the Fatherland is as stupid as having pride for owning the right pair of sneakers, but vastly more dangerous. It makes it much harder to be critical of immoral acts because if the country is wrong - or Hitler is wrong - than they have no reason to have pride. Which is assinine. To be willing to see reality and enough real self-respect to be critical of it and not identify with something else is real pride.

The qualities you list
idealism
idenfitification with country
following orders
are precisely the qualities
that will ALWAYS
lead to unjust violence.

The Hilter Youth had no selves. They were brainwashed. You do not have self-respect when you are not yourself. Those that truly were Hitler Youth, well, they were immoral.

 

[joepistole]

If this were the case, the world would have been in a truly woeful condition throughout almost all history! There have undoubtedly been times, often revolutionary times, when nations were energised and "got it together"; and other times when things fell apart.

Let me tell you a story. Many years ago, a relative who served with the British occupation forces after WWII reported on a conversation with an old German who had lived through both world wars. The German was no apologist for Hitler, for the Fuhrer had brought about the ruin of his country.

The (democratic) Weimar Republic, he said, had been sickeningly decadent, a squalid period of German history, but after the Nazis had come to power something wonderful began to happen. Throughout all ages, even among the writings of the ancient Greeks, men had despaired of the younger generation. But in the late 1930s, he had a revelation that the young people of his country were better than his own generation had been. They were better fed, healthier in mind and body, more self-confident, better mannered, better educated, more idealistic, more generous, better citizens. Thanks to the Hitler Youth, and other NSDAP-supported organisations, the pride they felt for the Fatherland translated into a pride they felt in themselves.

I felt a great joy in this moral regeneration, the old German had said, so that I did not want the young to share my own cynicism and doubts.

Things are never simple!

I think pre WWW II Germany was more a case of anarchy than democracy. That period was also the genesis of the neocon movement.

 

[River Ape]

. . . the repeated poor logic of your post.

But I was reporting an account of a conversation. I don't recall that I was conducting an exercise in inductive or deductive reasoning. Perhaps you should read it again.

The Hilter Youth had no selves. They were brainwashed. You do not have self-respect when you are not yourself. Those that truly were Hitler Youth, well, they were immoral.

Actually, the only former member of the Hitler Youth I have known personally was remarkably well adjusted, capable and sociable. She joined principally because it gave her free admission to the swimming baths. If she were a typical product of the Hitler Youth, then it helped to explain the impressive vigour with which the Germans rebuilt their country (Bundesrepublik) in the early post-war years. (Though she herself lived in Surrey.) This is not advanced as a logical point, however, but as an observation and reflection.

for example those Germans who listened to jazz

I have very often found that people who liked jazz were degenerates, with a higher than average rate of drug abuse and failed marrages. This is not advanced as a logical point, however, but as an observation based on years of experience.

I found your own post a little hysterical.

 

[Norsefire]

Really? True democracy has only been around for the past two centuries (and even now, it's not really all that true). Show me a case where this has happend, again and again, throughout history.

~String

Britain. America, at the moment.

 

[Simon Anders]

But I was reporting an account of a conversation. I don't recall that I was conducting an exercise in inductive or deductive reasoning. Perhaps you should read it again.

I did, just now. It ends on what I assume(d) was your comment: things are never as simple as they seem. This implies that the anectdote does lead to deductive conclusions. I responded to these. If you do not agree with those conclusions, great.

Actually, the only former member of the Hitler Youth I have known personally was remarkably well adjusted, capable and sociable. She joined principally because it gave her free admission to the swimming baths. If she were a typical product of the Hitler Youth, then it helped to explain the impressive vigour with which the Germans rebuilt their country (Bundesrepublik) in the early post-war years. (Though she herself lived in Surrey.) This is not advanced as a logical point, however, but as an observation and reflection.

And therefore, as you say above, useless for any inductive or deductive conclusions.

I have very often found that people who liked jazz were degenerates, with a higher than average rate of drug abuse and failed marrages. This is not advanced as a logical point, however, but as an observation based on years of experience.

It seems to me you want your cake - implying that your observations lead to accurate conclusions (see the bolded portion) while prepared to say you were doing no such thing if someone disagrees with these implied or stated conclusions.

I found your own post a little hysterical.

I found your post implying that Hitler Youth had their good points rather insidious. Now, finding out that you want to pretend you are not really making an argument, your posts seem slimy.

I will ignore you. As a fact about human nature. Other people are also going to find your 'I was just relating an anectdote, please don't react to it....etc.' rather disingenuous. On the internet, who cares really. But in your real life......

 

[River Ape]

When someone criticises my logic, I assume that they don't follow my argument that if X is so and Y is so, then Z follows. But the way I read your post, you did not think I should repeat the observations of a man who -- having observed the destruction of his country -- nonetheless saw the Nazi period as one of moral regeneration for its youth. Nowhere did I read any reference to my final comment, which might indeed have had elements of a logical conclusion. Hence, Simon, I am at as much of a loss as before to detect what you refer to as "the repeated poor logic of your post."

My own reading of history is that the (democratic) Weimar republic was a period of abandonment of traditional German Protestant values for a glorified indulgence in dissipation and moral squalor. If anyone has any belief in the notion that democracy raises moral values, I invite them to study this period of history.

As for the Nazi period, I thought the very way in which I had presented my post ("Let me tell you a story" thru to "Things are never simple") was an invitation to consider how far what the German was reported as saying might contain an element of truth. I gather you were not impressed by the suggestion! Fair enough!

With regard to the Hitler Youth, it was hardly the SS! Closer to the Scouts/Guides in many of its activities (until the last months of the war when younger and younger boys were drafted into the army); likely with the same merits of encouraging comradeship and good citizenship. You should not let the name lead you to imagine it was some sort of brainwashing machine for the infusion of distilled evil. I believe I am right in saying that the Allies did not declare it a criminal organisation. Von Schirach was jailed at Nuremberg not for his leadership of the Hitler Youth but for serving as gauleiter of Vienna.