0
Gawain

Can You Have Liberty Without Democracy?

Recommended Posts

This article had me thinking about this question:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123911916184897231.html#mod=rss_whats_news_us
Quote

Kuwait's Democracy Faces Turbulence

By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV

KUWAIT CITY -- When a street protest broke out here last month, the demonstrators weren't rallying against autocratic rule, unlike in other Arab capitals.

Instead, they chanted "Down with parliament!" Tying shut the parliament gates with the Kuwaiti national flag, they urged the country's monarch to dissolve its freely elected legislature -- a wish that came true hours later.
[Kuwait's Democracy Faces Strains] Associated Press

A Kuwaiti citizen Tuesday tries to symbolically close the gates of the country's National Assembly in protest against Parliament members, and in support of the emir, in Kuwait City.

According to rankings by Freedom House, a U.S. pro-democracy think tank, Kuwaitis enjoy more political rights than anyone else in the Arab world. But democracy, at least the way it's been practiced so far, is getting a bad name here. Kuwait is embroiled in a tumultuous power struggle between the ruling Sabah family and increasingly assertive lawmakers. The oil-rich country of 3.3 million people now is gearing up for its third parliamentary election in as many years, a poll that would usher in the nation's sixth government since 2006.

Amid this constant upheaval, parliamentarians have blocked a slew of development projects, including a $7.5 billion deal with Dow Chemical Co., while imposing conservative Islamic restrictions. Kuwait's infrastructure has steadily deteriorated, and the former regional hub now finds itself outshone by the absolute monarchies of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar, where more-liberal social rules and more-efficient governments have attracted investors, tourists and geopolitical clout.

"We used to be the envy of all the Gulf people because of our democracy, but now we envy these other countries ourselves," says Ali al-Baghli, chairman of the Kuwait Human Rights Society and a former lawmaker. "People are fed up with the National Assembly. It has stopped all development and passed the laws against our liberties."

Kuwait's emir, Sheik Sabah al Ahmad al Jaber al Sabah, dissolved the legislature in March to avert parliamentary questioning of his nephew, the prime minister. At the time, he defied widespread expectations that he would suspend the constitution altogether and re-establish absolute rule.

But Sheik Sabah also warned that, should the newly elected parliament prove as confrontational as its predecessor, he will "not hesitate to take any steps to maintain the security and stability of the nation" -- a threat interpreted by many as giving Kuwait's parliamentary democracy one final chance to succeed.

...

Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at [email protected]
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A1

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved



The article is quite a bit longer. But from this I ask:

Can there be individual liberty without democracy?
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Can there be individual liberty without democracy?



I think it depends on your definition of democracy, but even if by democracy you mean a republic like in the US, yes, I believe so.

I think the real tough one is what you mean by "individual liberty." Does that mean you're free to do anything and everything you want like being able to get drunk and shoot guns at 4 am if you want? Or just the "normal" amounts of liberty we in the US enjoy as outlined in our Constitution?

Still, even if you're looking for absolute liberty to do anything you'd like without any form of government whatsoever, sure, absolutely. Animals do it all the time.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberty is the freedom to have opportunities to pursue your goals, personal and professional.

Some monarchies and different types of govt structures provide this to the population.

However, it is usually in a country with a population
that largely has a single cultural identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

if you're looking for absolute liberty to do anything you'd like without any form of government whatsoever, sure, absolutely. Animals do it all the time.



Just to intellectualize, one could argue that, in fact, animals are not necessarily anarchic: they often engage in rudimentary government: packs/herds/prides/etc governed by hierarchies ranging from alpha to omega, the hierarchies existing within nests of ants or bees, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Can there be individual liberty without democracy?



Yes - Hong Kong under British rule seems to be the best modern example ... and largely remains so under Communist China.

The Magna Carta ensured (some) liberties for one part of the elite class in England under the monarchy. I’m not aware of any historical system that provided the ensured the extent of liberties that are commonly associated with modern western democracies/democratic-republics, tho’. Might be, just not aware of it. Altho’ I am skeptical w/r/t historical examples older than 1600s, as most of our current concepts of personal liberty (right to own property, etc) were largely results of the Enlightenment.

I would argue that personal liberties – which are not the same as rights: liberty being the ability to exercise rights – are more a function of the rule of law, strength of civil law, and the strength of the legal system. (E.g., Hong Kong under Communist China.)

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Some monarchies and different types of govt structures provide this [liberty] to the population.



Government does not provide liberty, they limit it and take it away.



How so?

Agree that Government cannot take away natural or inherant rights.
Folks whose liberties were increased under the 13th Amendment might disagree with you tho' on the ability of a government to enable exercise of those rights, i.e., liberty.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> The 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the government's
>ability to legalize slavery.

No, it does the opposite - it expressly forbids it. Indeed, it says nothing at all about the government's ability to legalize it, just that no one can do it. It is an example of government guaranteeing a liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

> No, it does the opposite - it expressly forbids it. forbidding is not the opposite of limiting, it's pretty much the ultimiate in limiting:P Indeed, it says nothing at all about the government's ability to legalize it, just that no one can do it. It is an example of government guaranteeing a liberty.this is a matter of philosophy, but I'd not say the government guarantees a liberty any more than it can 'grant' a liberty, it just acknowledges the inherent liberty that's already there, abolishing slavery corrected a mistake, it didn't grant freedom, it acknowledged what should have been inherent in the first place - it's a nit, but that pinged me



edit: looking harder at it, "guaranteed" is probably a pretty good word after all - nevermind

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that rights are the same as liberty? That may be the confusion.


Quote

Slavery is a violation of the rights of man. Laws are created by the government. Prior to 1865 the law permitted slavery. The 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the government's ability to legalize slavery.



How were those unable to exercise that right (lack of liberty) capable of doing so until the law changed? Did they have liberty? Or did the change in law by the government enable the exercise of the inherant right, which had been previously limited.

Devil's Advocate: Prior to 1865 individual property rights were protected for those who held one type of property in certain regions of the country, i.e., they could exercise a right & had that liberty. Were the individual liberties of those property holders infringed by the 13th Amendment? (Some of them most certainly thought so.)

Government and laws can protect and enable exericse of rights (liberty) or it can infringe. Both.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>forbidding is not the opposite of limiting, it's pretty much the ultimiate in limiting

Sorry, should have said "limits what EVERYONE can do, doesn't limit what the government can do." It doesn't say "in the future the government can't do blah blah blah" it says slavery is prohibited, period.

>but I'd not say the government guarantees a liberty any more than it can 'grant' a liberty . . .

It can't grant liberties that we already have, but it can guarantee that we can exercise those liberties. Indeed, that is one of the primary purposes of government (IMO.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you think that rights are the same as liberty? That may be the confusion.



Liberty is one of the inherent rights of man.

Quote

How were those unable to exercise that right (lack of liberty) capable of doing so until the law changed? Did they have liberty? Or did the change in law by the government enable the exercise of the inherant right, which had been previously limited.



The law, which allowed slavery, permitted the infringment on the liberty of the slaves. Therefore the liberty of the slaves was limited by the law. The slave owner's contention that the emancipation proclamation and subsequent 13th amendment violated their property rights doesn't hold water since there can exist no right to infringe on the rights of others.

There are two important points here to be mentioned: the first is that the government doesn't follow the rules; and the second is that legalized slavery is alive today and increasing. Most notably in the form of economic slavery where every child born in the United States today has more than $36,000 in their share of the current national debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The law, which allowed slavery, permitted the infringment on the liberty of the slaves.

Actually there was no federal law that allowed slavery. Indeed, the only mention of it in the original Constitution was that if a slave escaped to another state the other state had to return them.

But since the federal government did not _prohibit_ it states were free to do it. More accurately individual plantation owners were free to keep people against their will via the threat of physical harm.

>The slave owner's contention that the emancipation proclamation and
>subsequent 13th amendment violated their property rights doesn't hold water
>since there can exist no right to infringe on the rights of others.

Sure there is. You have a right to privacy; others (like the police) have the right, under certain conditions, to infringe upon that.

>There are two important points here to be mentioned: the first is that the
>government doesn't follow the rules; and the second is that legalized slavery is
>alive today and increasing. Most notably in the form of economic slavery where
>every child born in the United States today has more than $36,000 in their
>share of the current national debt.

Damn straight! And taxes! That's just like slavery, having to pay taxes. And the military; some of those poor guys forced to clean toilets are no better than slaves. And TV! They intentionally do cliffhangers every week to require us (just like slaves) to watch the next week as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Government and laws can protect and enable exericse of rights (liberty) or it can infringe. Both.

/Marg



Yup, I agree wholeheartedly.

Sociologically speaking we have a reasonably coherent understanding of 'liberty' in the US - the right to grumble about government, to vote, to dress however we want etc. The exercise of some of those liberties, however, may be interpreted as a violation of another's liberties (to not see your white hairy ass crack poking out of the top of your sagging pants while shopping in Vile-Mart, for example).

In short - there is no 'hard' definintion of liberty (or indeed of democracy - it has several) and therefore no - liberty is not dependent on democracy, in fact one could more robustly argue the opposite, that democracy is dependent on liberty of some sort as a prerequisite for any of it's forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's just like slavery, having to pay taxes.



Actually, functionally it is.

In both cases, a person is forced to give up their labor for another person or group, and has no choice in the matter. In fact, in both cases, you see the owner justifying the system by pointing out how they "provide" for their slaves, and how their slaves would be far worse off without the benefits provided by the owner.

Without their owners, the slaves would surely wallow in primitive barbarism--uneducated, unhealthy and unhappy.
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Actually, functionally it is.

To me, the difference between slavery and plain old taxes is the freedom to leave if you don't like it and go somewhere more to your liking.

>In both cases, a person is forced to give up their labor for another person
>or group, and has no choice in the matter.

If you chose to move to Niger, do you really think the US government would stop you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all seriousness, I have often thought that Liberty could be better served by some other system than democracy.

Democracy tends to devolve to "majority rules" followed shortly by "majority rules absolutely." In virtually every case, modern, democratically elected governments have served simply as a tool for the oppression of the minorities in society.

I'm not saying I see a better system, save perhaps some sort of anarcho-capitalism, although I will admit that Robert Heinlein's vision of "Constitutional Tyranny" is quite intriguing.

The problem with democracy is that it tends to view the will of the people as the ultimate "good" and "right," forgetting that there are many freedoms that the group should not interfere with, whether they find them distasteful or not.
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Actually, functionally it is.

To me, the difference between slavery and plain old taxes is the freedom to leave if you don't like it and go somewhere more to your liking.

>In both cases, a person is forced to give up their labor for another person
>or group, and has no choice in the matter.

If you chose to move to Niger, do you really think the US government would stop you?



I think that if I kept my banking anywhere within their reach, they'd attempt to force me to labor for them anyway.

Or did you miss how important the elimination of "tax havens" (i.e. places beyond the enslaving reach of their taxation) was at the most recent G20 meeting?
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I think that if I kept my banking anywhere within their reach,
>they'd attempt to force me to labor for them anyway.

?? Right. But if you move to Niger, and keep your money there, I can guarantee they will not "force you to labor for them." Your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0