What's so great about democracy and human rights?

[FTNZ]

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

 

[Mycroft]

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.

 

[Bunyip]

What's so great about democracy and human rights? The alternative.

 

[FTNZ]

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.

Nice critique of just one of the several characteristics of democracy... want to start on all the others that are listed in the short link in the OP? Or are you one of the people you refer to who "don't or can't read the policy"?

 

[Mycroft]

• Freedom of the press makes possible the exposure of corruption.
This doesn't really exist anymore. Most sources of news are sponsored, and they'd never speak out against their own sponsors for fear of losing money even if they were aware of a corruption. This is not freedom. Also, most news is owned by about the same 10 people who all have pretty similar values.

•It gives them freedom to make choices about their lives
This also rarely happens. Nobody is independent. We all have something that keeps us in a set pattern of behaviour conducive to the State: a job, a mortgage, children, etc. People, also, are not educated enough to arrive at intelligent decisions for themselves. This is why anarchy, as a system, would never work.

•to develop their potential as human beings and to live free from fear, harassment and discrimination
Doesn't happen. If you can't afford education, you don't have the freedom to develop your potential.
Also everyone lives in fear of something, due to high dependancy. People are discriminated against and harassed.

•It gives them protection under the law and the right to elect legislators of their choice and to remove them if they do not perform to their satisfaction.
See my other post.

•Public officers such as Auditors General and Ombudsmen,
All bought out years ago. They pass most incidents off as 'business decisions' now.

•Such a democracy gives its members many opportunities to participate in public life.
Well you didn't get to vote on the last freeway expansion, or the demolition of this or that building, or the design of another building, or whether this or that traffic system should be put there, etc. Where's the participation?

Also, I find this ironic. The article is about Australian democracy. A country that take punitive action if you if you don't vote... So that isn't democracy. It is, again, just a word being used to placate you into accepting that system.

 

[Mycroft]

What's so great about democracy and human rights? The alternative.

The alternatives that you know of. There is no binary decision between Democracy and Dictatorship.

 

[Bunyip]

If you lt the question in the context of China, both democracy and human rights take on entirely different characteristics.

The alternatives that you know of. There is no binary decision between Democracy and Dictatorship.

Well sure. And a dictatorship can be utopian. But less stable.

 

[Mycroft]

Another example of why democracy fails that I just thought of:

When Obama was running for president, millions of African Americans voted for him 'Because he da black guy! He da black guy gonna make it awwwwright!'

But had they read any of his policies? Had they taken the time to analyse his position on certain subjects? If they had, they'd have discovered that he had no special positions on the African-American community at large. In his first speech, he decided not to mention the special problems of African Americans even in a situation where the blows of the Great Recession with its double digit unemployment are disproportionately hurting African Americans.

This is a common problem. The Electorate may resoundingly vote for a Minister who is in favour of same-sex marriage without ever bothering to assess his positions on taxation, immigration, etc. David Cameron is a prime example: he was in favour of same-sex marriages, but his policies on just about everything else are nightmarish at best.

People tend to pick the thing that resonates with them emotionally. This is a poor way to run democracy.

 

[Laika]

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.

I think there are some inherent flaws in the concept of human rights. Consider what we mean by "human".

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The biological condition of being human is NOT the basis of "human" rights; rather it is the recognition of moral-legal personhood. Humanity is defined by the condition of being "endowed with reason and conscience". Therefore rights are a qualification dependent on a person's moral faculties. If you can argue that someone is not 'human' as they have diminished faculties or moral responsibility they are not entitled to 'human rights' because they are not recognised as 'persons' capable of exercising them. The reason this is important is because if you came to ascribe someone as morally inferior, as behaving like "animals" or "savages", it is a short step to saying they aren't "human" and are not members of the community and therefore do not enjoy those rights.

• In the Abortion debate, you can see that whilst the condition of a fetus being 'human' would necessarily ential a 'right to life', the fact that a fetus has diminished mental faculties means they cannot be recognised as legal persons.

• Doctors struggle to deal with the 'rights' of coma patients, who whilst having the status of being humans cannot exercise their moral faculties because they are unconscious and therefore do not qualify as 'persons' to exercise their rights.

• Children are widely accepted as having diminished moral capacity to make judgement and there rights are not recognised, and are instead the responsibility of a parent or guardian.

• Mental Patients have diminished faculties whilst being 'human' and are deprived of their 'human' rights and are instead under the protection of psychartrists.

• The Rights of Prisoners are often compromised, such as whether they have a right to vote, or in the case of the death penalty, a 'right to life', because they have violated the standards of 'humanity' and that calls into question whether the breach of the law means they are inherently incapable of exercising "reason and conscience" whilst "acting in a spirit of brotherhood".

Now consider where entites have rights, whilst not actually being 'human';

• In the US, Corporations- whilst not being 'human- are recognised as legal persons and therefore exercise there 'human rights'. Preventing a corporation as a legal person from donating money to an election or lobbying congess is therefore a violation of the corporations "human rights"- even though, it is not actually 'human'.

• The elasticity of the concept of personhood goes further and can apply to non-humans when we look at questions of what it means to be "endowed with reason and conscience" such as with animal rights and with robot rights. If we look at the former, apes are our evolutionary 'cousins' but do not have rights even though they do have a capacity for empathy, the ability to feel pain and distress, but because they aren't biologically "human", they are not entitled to 'rights'. The latter is more in anticipation of the problems that will develop with the technology and are stretching the very definition of conscienousness from being a feature of biological 'persons' to mechanical ones.

The concept of human rights is derived from the theory of 'natural rights' in the 18th and 19th century. In that period, Women and Ethnic Minorities were deprived of their "human rights" because it was believed they were morally inferior and incapable of exercising them. It was the "natural right" of white landowners to own slaves since it was assumed black people couldn't look after themselves. It was the "natural right" The same argument was used against "racially inferior" peoples who, as they were "savages" who did not have a culture or civilisation comparable to that of white europeans, were not entitled to recognise their rights to own land or even the very existence of their tribe. Denying these people's right to life through Genocide was the White Mans burden and was accepted based on the belief that inherent differences in biology and race meant that "personhood" was not a universal condition and therefore "rights" were not universal.

The concept of human rights therefore has very little to do with 'humanity' and much more to do with what we think qualifies as "human". Humanity as the basis for entitlement to rights is therefore not a universal biologcal condition, but a much more relativistic 'moral' qualification based on how we assess a persons faculties.

 

[Mequa]

The biggest problem with democracy is that the public use their rights, that is the right to vote, to vote away their rights.

Easily swayed and manipulated in their ignorance, the general public are gullible sheep in my assessment. I hold out the recent Conservative victory in Britain as a case in point.

 

[BSM1]

Another example of why democracy fails that I just thought of:

When Obama was running for president, millions of African Americans voted for him 'Because he da black guy! He da black guy gonna make it awwwwright!'

But had they read any of his policies? Had they taken the time to analyse his position on certain subjects? If they had, they'd have discovered that he had no special positions on the African-American community at large. In his first speech, he decided not to mention the special problems of African Americans even in a situation where the blows of the Great Recession with its double digit unemployment are disproportionately hurting African Americans.

This is a common problem. The Electorate may resoundingly vote for a Minister who is in favour of same-sex marriage without ever bothering to assess his positions on taxation, immigration, etc. David Cameron is a prime example: he was in favour of same-sex marriages, but his policies on just about everything else are nightmarish at best.

People tend to pick the thing that resonates with them emotionally. This is a poor way to run democracy.

Not sure I understand your argument here. What is the better alternative for voting for someone for what ever reason? Granted, evidently most of the electorate in the last two elections were idiots, but the right to freely choose a leader was still paramount.

 

[LuisDantas]

Democracy and human rights are worthy and necessary goals, but they may well be beyond the actual ability of humanity to pursue.

At least in the current circunstances. It would be different with less of a population explosion, less military technology, and less attachment to political fictions such as land ownership and nations.

 

[Mycroft]

Not sure I understand your argument here. What is the better alternative for voting for someone for what ever reason? Granted, evidently most of the electorate in the last two elections were idiots, but the right to freely choose a leader was still paramount.

Better education for all people so they can make informed decisions for themselves.

 

[BSM1]

Better education for all people so they can make informed decisions for themselves.

This I agree with. IMO I believe that you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you can't even name your Representatives in Congress.

 

[lovemuffin]

Another example of why democracy fails that I just thought of:

When Obama was running for president, millions of African Americans voted for him 'Because he da black guy! He da black guy gonna make it awwwwright!'

You are inadvertently (I'm sure) perpetuating a racist stereotype. Of course, racial demographics of national elections can only be determined by exit polls, which may not be perfect and have the usual caveats related to polling, but in 2000 Al Gore won 90% of the AA vote. In 2004 John Kerry won 88%. In 2008, Barack Obama won 95%, and in 2012 93%.

Sources:
Five myths about black voters - The Washington Post
President Exit Polls - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls.main/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Did Obama win a statistically significant increase in the black vote over John Kerry and Al Gore? I am not entirely sure of the margin of error on all those polls, but I suspect the answer is yes, but a fairly small one. Is it reasonable to attribute that increase to "da black guy gonna make it awwwwright?" Even leaving aside the racist tone and stereotyping of language, I would suggest the answer is no, but I would also suggest that if the first African American nominee of a major political party in the US garnered 1% more AA votes merely for being black, given the brutal history of this country with regard to race, it would be asinine for anyone to complain that this was some kind of massive injustice.

 

[Mycroft]

it would be asinine for anyone to complain that this was some kind of massive injustice.

You haven't really refuted my point though. People do vote with their emotions, not with their critical thinking skills.

 

[lovemuffin]

the only point I was interested in is the one where you assert, contrary to the evidence and without justification, that millions of black voters voted for Obama merely because he was black.

 

[MD]

• Freedom of the press makes possible the exposure of corruption.
This doesn't really exist anymore. Most sources of news are sponsored, and they'd never speak out against their own sponsors for fear of losing money even if they were aware of a corruption. This is not freedom. Also, most news is owned by about the same 10 people who all have pretty similar values.

•It gives them freedom to make choices about their lives
This also rarely happens. Nobody is independent. We all have something that keeps us in a set pattern of behaviour conducive to the State: a job, a mortgage, children, etc. People, also, are not educated enough to arrive at intelligent decisions for themselves. This is why anarchy, as a system, would never work.

•to develop their potential as human beings and to live free from fear, harassment and discrimination
Doesn't happen. If you can't afford education, you don't have the freedom to develop your potential.
Also everyone lives in fear of something, due to high dependancy. People are discriminated against and harassed.

•It gives them protection under the law and the right to elect legislators of their choice and to remove them if they do not perform to their satisfaction.
See my other post.

•Public officers such as Auditors General and Ombudsmen,
All bought out years ago. They pass most incidents off as 'business decisions' now.

•Such a democracy gives its members many opportunities to participate in public life.
Well you didn't get to vote on the last freeway expansion, or the demolition of this or that building, or the design of another building, or whether this or that traffic system should be put there, etc. Where's the participation?

Also, I find this ironic. The article is about Australian democracy. A country that take punitive action if you if you don't vote... So that isn't democracy. It is, again, just a word being used to placate you into accepting that system.

Well said. I think it's also worth nothing that many if not most politicians are corrupt, and in democracies it's those with the most funding win. Corporations have a lot of power in swaying votes through media manipulation, and in many ways their ends are more important than the average voter. Also judges are backed by corporations now as well. There's also the fact that certain groups who actively campaign get to shape the law more than others. Case in point in America the majority are pro life, but the law is pro choice. This is because the pro choice side is much more politically effective in influencing judges, but it's not a representation of the majority.

Human rights is another cute word which has no practical meaning in the real world. Case in point are all the NATO and American wars to promote human rights and democracy in the Middle East, which has lead to absolute disaster. Or the very fact that some of the best espionage groups are in Western nations, who commit some horrible atrocities. How do you gauge human rights? How can you state that they're universal? What a Saudi sees as human rights are different from a Dutch sees them.

Democracy and Human Rights can only work in extremely rich countries aka the West,and even that effect is limited. Without stability and security such concepts are useless. The only true difference between democracies and non democracies is the freedom to state your mind. The effectiveness of your beliefs and statements however are limited. There is more freedom though, no doubt about that.

 

[YmirGF]

You haven't really refuted my point though. People do vote with their emotions, not with their critical thinking skills.

In defense of the average moron isn't it a tad unrealistic to expect the electorate to wade through thousands of pages of documentation in order to make their choices? The average human animal just does not have that kind of time, not to say they could not be more informed than just going with a wink or a smile, but it is a serious problem in our highly complex world.

 

[MD]

the only point I was interested in is the one where you assert, contrary to the evidence and without justification, that millions of black voters voted for Obama merely because he was black.

The way he delivered it was racist, but he has a point. Millions of ethnic minorities vote for Democrats and Obama because they see the alternative as some sort of White supremacist party. A lot of the time they don't even know the policies. Obama was better than most presidents in recent history, but that's not the point.

Most Latinos and Asians in my experience are not leftist democrats at heart, they're conservative. I would say that for even the majority of African Americans. But they vote democract because they're either not white, or christian or both.