Interesting theory

unfortunately the "democracy" which I would consider to be under the most stress/threat is of course the US; which has the strongest support for what you refer to as "Liberal" democracy" (isn't that term invented by Fox news?)

Whilst pursuing it's own paranoia around the world the US is hipping - no hacking - away at it;s own democratic institutions.

The US form of government is a Republic, NOT a democracy.

Democracy has never existed in any country that I know of, If anyone knows of where it had I would be interested to know.

In my Opinion a Thin veneer of Democracy was in place in some countries in the past 100 years or so to maintain the illusion of self Government, and control the masses.

Having said that, The present system of Government has being vary, suspenseful

We live at a time of , peace, prosperity,health and longevity. Do we fave problems? sure we do, are yhr solutions beyond our grasp?

Not by a long shot.

Interesting theory

unfortunately the "democracy" which I would consider to be under the most stress/threat is of course the US; which has the strongest support for what you refer to as "Liberal" democracy" (isn't that term invented by Fox news?)

Whilst pursuing it's own paranoia around the world the US is hipping - no hacking - away at it;s own democratic institutions.

The US form of government is a Republic, NOT a democracy.

I think you might want to define your terms here and then explain the differences.

Bear in mind this is a "chat" forum so try to keep it clear, concise and brief.

Democracy has never existed in any country that I know of, If anyone knows of where it had I would be interested to know.

In my Opinion a Thin veneer of Democracy was in place in some countries in the past 100 years or so to maintain the illusion of self Government, and control the masses.

Having said that, The present system of Government has being vary, suspenseful

We live at a time of , peace, prosperity,health and longevity. Do we fave problems? sure we do, are yhr solutions beyond our grasp?

Not by a long shot.

I'd say that virtually every word of that is wildly inaccurate and the result of very little thought.

"Liberal" democracy" (isn't that term invented by Fox news?)

Not really.

Liberal democracy traces its origins—and its name—to the European 18th century, also known as the Age of Enlightenment. http://en.wikipedia....beral_democracy

Thank you. So much of our discussion requires clarification of terms.

By "liberal democracy" I have in mind the models that were put forward by people like Locke, Bentham and Mill, and perhaps (though I'm hazy on this) the early, pre-Jacobin phase of the French Revolution.

Bentham and Mill advocated Utilitarianism as a guiding principle in addition to their emphasis on individual freedom and caution over abstractions ("society", "the people", "natural rights", etc). Utilitarianism can be criticized for its passivity in the face of those who are genuinely disadvantaged even when the greatest happiness of the greatest number has been attained. It is to the credit of social democrats that they point this out; however, they in turn can be faulted for an over-emphasis on the rights and "entitlements" of not only those who suffer through no fault of their own, but also those who are irresponsible and often the quickest to be resentful and to assert their claims to public monies.

Having worked for many years in equity ("social justice") areas, I would argue strongly that, despite any professed admiration for John Rawls's "Fairness" criteria, utilitarianism is in fact the default position of responsible public servants, unless you want to waste taxpayers' money. Some things can be done by government for those most vulnerable, but they achieve little if not backed up by the person's family and voluntary civil society.

"Liberal democracy" is representative democracy (only "participatory" for most people in elections and referenda, and for some in the voluntary associations of civil society). Candidates are elected and then have to balance representing their electors' wishes, following party discipline, and providing some level of leadership in the community based on their standing and their access to information.

And Liberal democracy focuses on "rights as freedoms" rather than "rights as entitlements". The former include freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of movement, religious practice and the like. The latter include the right to a sufficient wage, health care, free education, and so on.

Rights as entitlements are the focus of social democrats, and many of the things that are seen to be social gains in western societies in the past century are of this kind. And they would be of undoubted benefit if there were a point at which the individual and entrepreneurial freedoms lost in order that these entitlements could be gained did not begin to outweigh the benefits, and if governments were able to keep the costs of these entitlements under control. But what we are witnessing in Europe and the United States is that the balance has been lost and needs restoration.

No easy task.

unfortunately that's not how the tems are being used on this thread - there is a subtext.

Democracy has never existed in any country that I know of, If anyone knows of where it had I would be interested to know.

In my Opinion a Thin veneer of Democracy was in place in some countries in the past 100 years or so to maintain the illusion of self Government, and control the masses.

Having said that, The present system of Government has being vary, suspenseful

We live at a time of , peace, prosperity,health and longevity. Do we fave problems? sure we do, are yhr solutions beyond our grasp?

Not by a long shot.

I'd say that virtually every word of that is wildly inaccurate and the result of very little thought.

I think you would be better to give an alternative viewpoint.

SC

"Liberal" democracy" (isn't that term invented by Fox news?)

Not really.

Liberal democracy traces its origins—and its name—to the European 18th century, also known as the Age of Enlightenment. http://en.wikipedia....beral_democracy

Thank you. So much of our discussion requires clarification of terms.

By "liberal democracy" I have in mind the models that were put forward by people like Locke, Bentham and Mill, and perhaps (though I'm hazy on this) the early, pre-Jacobin phase of the French Revolution.

Bentham and Mill advocated Utilitarianism as a guiding principle in addition to their emphasis on individual freedom and caution over abstractions ("society", "the people", "natural rights", etc). Utilitarianism can be criticized for its passivity in the face of those who are genuinely disadvantaged even when the greatest happiness of the greatest number has been attained. It is to the credit of social democrats that they point this out; however, they in turn can be faulted for an over-emphasis on the rights and "entitlements" of not only those who suffer through no fault of their own, but also those who are irresponsible and often the quickest to be resentful and to assert their claims to public monies.

Having worked for many years in equity ("social justice") areas, I would argue strongly that, despite any professed admiration for John Rawls's "Fairness" criteria, utilitarianism is in fact the default position of responsible public servants, unless you want to waste taxpayers' money. Some things can be done by government for those most vulnerable, but they achieve little if not backed up by the person's family and voluntary civil society.

"Liberal democracy" is representative democracy (only "participatory" for most people in elections and referenda, and for some in the voluntary associations of civil society). Candidates are elected and then have to balance representing their electors' wishes, following party discipline, and providing some level of leadership in the community based on their standing and their access to information.

And Liberal democracy focuses on "rights as freedoms" rather than "rights as entitlements". The former include freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of movement, religious practice and the like. The latter include the right to a sufficient wage, health care, free education, and so on.

Rights as entitlements are the focus of social democrats, and many of the things that are seen to be social gains in western societies in the past century are of this kind. And they would be of undoubted benefit if there were a point at which the individual and entrepreneurial freedoms lost in order that these entitlements could be gained did not begin to outweigh the benefits, and if governments were able to keep the costs of these entitlements under control. But what we are witnessing in Europe and the United States is that the balance has been lost and needs restoration.

No easy task.

unfortunately that's not how the tems are being used on this thread - there is a subtext.

I think you would be better to give an alternative viewpoint.

SC

Democracy has never existed in any country that I know of, If anyone knows of where it had I would be interested to know.

In my Opinion a Thin veneer of Democracy was in place in some countries in the past 100 years or so to maintain the illusion of self Government, and control the masses.

Having said that, The present system of Government has being vary, suspenseful

We live at a time of , peace, prosperity,health and longevity. Do we fave problems? sure we do, are yhr solutions beyond our grasp?

Not by a long shot.

I'd say that virtually every word of that is wildly inaccurate and the result of very little thought.

you would, wouldn't you.

your response seems to be the result of a lot of Thought.

Interesting theory

unfortunately the "democracy" which I would consider to be under the most stress/threat is of course the US; which has the strongest support for what you refer to as "Liberal" democracy" (isn't that term invented by Fox news?)

Whilst pursuing it's own paranoia around the world the US is hipping - no hacking - away at it;s own democratic institutions.

The US form of government is a Republic, NOT a democracy.

I think you might want to define your terms here and then explain the differences.

Bear in mind this is a "chat" forum so try to keep it clear, concise and brief.

I'll consider doing that after as you regale us with your vast knowledge of the Falklands.

it seems democratic countries are becoming more communist, and communist countries are becoming more democratic these days.

One makes more laws, while the other loosens up on the rules.