Democracy vs Rights/Freedoms - Which is more important?

Democracy or Rights/Freedoms

  • Democracy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    37

Getting tard comed

kiwifarms.net
Pretty self explanatory. Assuming you only get one, which do you choose? In case examples are needed: you live in a place that votes in marxist communistic policies that restrict your rights, you live under a king/dictator/autocrat that heads a state or goverment(choose your semantics) that has a Bill of Rights like document enshrined that has to be respected otherwise the leader gets replaced in an unpleasant way.

It's a hypothetical. If you still need help for the king hypothetical imagine a praetorian guard or something similar.

Edit: To be fair to Democracy, you do get to vote and have a say(hypothetically) in how the gov. runs. You wouldn't in the king/autocrat/dictator scenario.
 
Last edited:

tehpope

Archivist
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
C.S. Lewis said:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
 

Foxxo

OH LAWD HE COMING
kiwifarms.net
> Implying that the Roman Imperial system of military-handled absolute rule & constant rulership churn wasn't complete dogshit

"I'm under constant surveillance, I can't defend myself, and I would get sent to a "reeducation" camp if I say the wrong thing in the wrong company. But at least I can delude myself into thinking I have a say in things"
-OP, probably
> Implying that there aren't authoritarian governments that use or are propped up by democracy
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Jewthulhu

Jewthulhu

Rabbi of the Great Old Ones
kiwifarms.net
> Implying that there aren't authoritarian governments that use or are propped up by democracy
Where did I say there weren't? My point is the OP's question is retarded and no sane person would choose the illusion of choice over guaranteed rights/freedoms.
 

mindlessobserver

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The role of an enlightened government (i.e, one that subscribes to the ideals of the enlightenment) is one that protects the natural rights and freedoms of its citizens. What form this government takes is immaterial. A hereditary monarchy could be enlightened, if they actually did their job. Invariably though they did not. Representative Democracy has been our best form to achieving the goal of an Enlightened government.

But it's hardly flawless and can fail like any other government form.
 

DumbDude42

kiwifarms.net
depends on which rights and freedoms are important to you.
this varies considerably between different cultures, and even between groups within the same culture. for example, many americans consider the right to own firearms a fundamental and essential right, while most europeans and asians do not think that at all.
likewise, many europeans and leftists consider welfare and entitlements "human rights", which logically results in things like state owned universal health insurance schemes, whereas most americans and libertarians consider this preposterous because how could anybody possibly have a right to other peoples labor/resources?
more relevant to the democracy vs authoritarianism question: some people consider the right to political participation an essential and fundamental part of the right to free speech, so non democratic government would by definition violate these rights.
 

Baguette Child

so tender and mild
kiwifarms.net
Marxism cannot, by design, exist in a true democracy. Marxism may use democratic process to seize power, but once it has it? Democracy goes straight to the chopping block. Having guaranteed rights that cannot be touched by any means is the only way to ensure true freedom and safety for the individual.

Powerlevel; My grandparents and parents grew up under the Soviets and they have a running joke about how much their 'votes' in that system were worth. A few decades of Marxist leadership fucked up my country of origin so bad that it's a crumbling shithole even today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meat Target

Meat Target

I'm what you call a professional
kiwifarms.net
Democracy, which means giving the average Joe or Jane the right to have their voice heard, is derived from the idea that Joe and Jane have rights in the first place.

The Declaration of Independence says that rights are "endowed by their Creator". Human rights rest on the assumption that, being made in the image and likeness of God, all people have inherent dignity and must be treated as such.

Democracy™️ (as in direct democracy) is nothing but mob rule, which is why America's framers hated it. They saw what it did around the same time in France.

If Democracy™️ is more important than rights or freedoms, then that means the Mob giveth and the Mob taketh away. Do you want to live in a world where your rights - your dignity as a human being - are forfeit if you're outnumbered?

I'm not opposed to democracy in principle. It's far from perfect, but it's better than anything else. But these days, anyone who is screeching about "Our Democracy™️" loves the idea of two wolves and one sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Democracy and voting are supposed to be a means to an end: a freer, happier society where people can choose to keep the policies they like, and get rid of shitty policies that do not bring them closer to a freer, happier society. Democracy is not an end unto itself. The Mob is not God.
 
Tags
None