What's so great about democracy and human rights?

[Guy Threepwood]

Maybe Churchill summed it up well- that democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others..

There is always a discrepancy between ideals and practice- and there is an ironic reversal in the case of stable democracy v dictatorship

govt of the people by the people for the people- is promised on paper an immutable right to rebuild the govt from the ground up, if it should become 'destructive towards these ends'

while in practice it's stability, separate powers etc, make this practically impossible.

In a dictatorship; even talk of changing government is forbidden on paper- while in practice dictators are bumped off all the time, and the entire govt structure is replaced

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think it boils down to this: if you want a government that is aware of and responsive to the wants and needs and preferences of the whole of the population, you need a democracy of some sort. Democracy, to work, is a full-contact sport, in which the more people involved, the better it performs--and when people can't, or worse, won't, participate, it begins to fail. Requiring people to vote probably isn't a viable solution, but then, real participation is much more than just voting. Democracy is not something that you wind up and let go, never to be worried about again--it's something that you have to keep adjusting and working to improve, to fight those groups that would otherwise take over and run things to their own benefit--be it a monarchy, a plutocracy, an aristocracy, a theocracy...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Today, someone said to me that human rights are a "Western" concept that is not applicable or effective everywhere in the world, and that democracy is not always the best system.

So I thought I would provide some information about these topics, and if anyone wants to argue against them, they can go ahead.

IMO, the pursuit of democracy and human rights is paramount to human progress, everywhere. If you don't like the way a country or group of countries are working towards these ideals, its not because the ideals are flawed or unattainable. It's because they haven't been implemented optimally. So, try contributing to improvement instead of trying to take the world in an authoritarian direction.

Please read this short description of the characteristics of a democratic society before posting:
Characteristics of a democratic society | AustralianCollaboration

"Human rights" can be defined as those rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I agree that many, usually liberal, people are downplaying the absolute necessity of human rights which protect our freedom. 180,000,000 people were murdered by their own governments in the 21st Century, violating just one right, their right to life. These "What's the big deal about freedom" people are examples of Lenin's "useful idiots", or just plain idiots. They've become conditioned to civilized governments that fear the people, not realizing the carnage that happens when that gets reversed.

As for the UDoHR, there are way to many rights in it. No thought was given to any rational basis for those rights. They were just put up for a vote. Morality by committee. But above and beyond the "rights" themselves, Article 29 (3) states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." IOW, they can be ruled irrelevant according to transient political agendas at any time.

I can find a basis for only 4 basic human rights (life, liberty, property and self defense) worthy of and necessarily being defended by government.

 

[redpolk]

Democracy is a con. It's a word used to placate you into accepting a given system - this system. It also doesn't work.

It does't work because most people, in general, are not educated enough to arrived at informed decisions on who to vote for. They're not educated enough to read through policy, decipher the language, and make a rational decision on which policies are best for them.

The people that are educated enough to read policies and decide what's best for them are the same people who we decry as manipulating the system, as being the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes. These people run the multinationals, the military, and so on.

Yet, generally, people tend to make an emotional decision on who to vote for or they vote with their position of differential advantage. If you're rich, you want to protect that wealth so you vote conservative. If you're working class, you want to protect your job and family so you vote for whichever party seems to promise the security of these things. Then you get upset when they break their promise.

The truth is, however, a party policy always carries out what it intends to do. A politician may have reneged on his word, but he has not reneged on his party policy, which never reflected the promise he made anyway. It's just that people, generally, don't or can't read the policy.

Democracy in our day and age is, simply, a system whereby five hillbillies know better than two scientists.

Chinese government is based on the idea that a selected minority (the communist party) knows better than the average Chinese.Would you like that?

 

[Laika]

Chinese government is based on the idea that a selected minority (the communist party) knows better than the average Chinese.Would you like that?

what makes you think you have a choice? The notion of government by consent or of a social contract between government and the governed is not universal. As Mao put it, "Political Power comes out of the barrel of a Gun".

 

[Yerda]

I can find a basis for only 4 basic human rights (life, liberty, property and self defense) worthy of and necessarily being defended by government.

From those four most of the human rights we recognise follow.