Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bijou's avatar

I think this is a good definition of liberal democracy: “…that individual people should be free to live their own lives as they wish, subject always to respecting the similar rights of others.”

and for that reason I do not wish to live in a strict liberal democracy. I’d prefer some element of socialism as well as in ”in addition to”.

Because some global/communal problems cannot be solved with individualism of this libdem nature. It is well known throughout history that rules-based orders only work well so far as they do not hit unforeseen consequences, so never work far enough. I like rules based orders. But they can sometimes become pathological in certain domains, and some element of collectivism is required as a counter-balance. When enough people rise up to tell the rules chiefs that things are wrong, then the rules can, and probably should, be changed. Even if the change is disastrous, if we do not know the outcome ahead of time, but know just “something” has to change, then the boat must be rocked.

I’d offer the UN as an example. The rule of Security Council veto has to be rebelled against. With extreme intellectual violence (meaning lucid and righteous arguments and affirmative actions, say, actions to violate that rule with extreme prejudice).

If poor decisions are made in some transition, then they too can be changed.

Expand full comment
Bijou's avatar

Could you also add a paragraph on workplace democracy too?

It is not like we need to have radical democracy in all things (let my nine year olds vote for what we have for dinner), but where there is a moral/spiritual purpose for democracy, or a democratic element in a system, we should try to get it in that place.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts