Dictatorships do it efficiently

June 1, 2007 10:54 PM

"Dictatorships are not hamstrung by the preferences of voters for, say, a pervasive welfare state," says Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute. Unless we abandon welfare programs, he suggests, the free world might be overwhelmed by the staggering efficiency of free-market totalitarianism. Is it just me, or have conservatives been waxing poetic about the benefits of dictatorship lately?
posted by verb (94 comments total)

It seems they might be hamstrung by other problems, such as eg the mass jailing and hamstringing of dissidents, intellectuals, and religious and cultural minorities. Not to mention non-hamstringing-type tortures.
posted by adoarns at 11:01 PM on June 1, 2007

Does democracy require economic success? I'll never get this more, more, more attitude of "growth" and "productivity" as a benchmark for progress. For me, I've happily traded less money and fewer things for more time with my family. I live quite happily without a car, without a big screen TV, and without a stock portfolio. I work 20 hours a week, pay all my bills, eat well, travel some, and enjoy a higher quality of life than most other people on the planet. It's enough.

Of course, the rich people who benefit more from my hard work than I do are probably not happy with my choice. But fuck 'em. Their happiness is not my concern.
posted by three blind mice at 11:09 PM on June 1, 2007 [12 favorites]

Reminds me of the classic "At least the trains run on time" comment about fascist Italy. It seems strange that after so long arguing that free market economics would lead to individual freedoms, some might wring their hands and say that our freedoms are standing in the way of free markets.

It seems that the language of economics has become the only shared vocabulary in our country.
posted by verb at 11:13 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

A degree of capitalism seems to be a necessary precondition for democracy, but not the other way around. Singapore is a country that has happily exchanged benevolent despotism for stability and wealth.

I guess the main defence of democracy is that there's a lot more to life and society than money.
posted by wilful at 11:15 PM on June 1, 2007

Does democracy require economic success?

Only to the extent that voters demand government policies that foster the creation of wealth and vote out anyone who doesn't play along. Depending on what the electorate values, this could easily lead to a democratically-elected government that was obsessed with economic performance.

I guess the main defence of democracy is that there's a lot more to life and society than money.

There's more to free markets than money, or there easily could be. three blind mice is a great example. In a free market, people are free to say that no amount of money is worth working that 21st hour in a week.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:19 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

might be hamstrung by other problems, such as eg the mass jailing and hamstringing of dissidents, intellectuals, and religious and cultural minorities

Elimination of welfare is a good start in that direction. If you look at the dollar amounts the welfare programs currently in place are very small. But the damage created by loose cannons, and people who are way out of alignment, it's difficult to put an exact figure on that.
posted by nervousfritz at 11:20 PM on June 1, 2007

For that matter, classifications may be a real help, WIC and food stamps, child income tax credits may be a good way of helping out families, keeping people from starving, but meanwhile limiting the political activity of those who are disposed to it.
posted by nervousfritz at 11:25 PM on June 1, 2007

In a free market, people are free to say that no amount of money is worth working that 21st hour in a week.

Bingo Mr. President. That's why the folks at the AEI hate people like me. If I don't work that 21st (or 61st) hour producing "more" they won't be able to enjoy their McMansions and Hummers. My choice negatively impacts their greed and this is why the free market is becoming so dangerous.
posted by three blind mice at 11:25 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

Nazi Germany's economy, post-1932, grew to be a powerhouse to be reckoned with. The country recovered from the global economic depression once it was directed entirely towards the war effort. Corporations were given preferable treatment if they aligned themselves with government policy, and rearmament spurred technological growth, as well as economic. Trade unions were dismantled, and society was stratified by political beliefs. I suspect, however, that the dire economic conditions prior to the Reichstag fire were what allowed the autocratic leadership to take control in the first place.

I guess if I wanted to take over the United States in a coup, I'd first set up conditions to allow terrorists or black flag operations to decimate a part of the country, allow healthcare, housing and educational inequities cripple the rest, then commit public spending to rebuilding a miltaristic society and funding faith-based or similar poltically-aligned social programs, all while taking apart labor unions, environmental laws, and anything else in the way of corporations increasing profitability.

While Nazi Germany bent its economy towards the goal of global political domination, the United States seems to invert this: the neoconservative goal is instead global corporatist ("free market") domination; the military and politicians in this case are just a means to the end of willing the (totalitarian) economic ideal across the globe.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:26 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

Regarding the last link, a WSJ op-ed by Harvey Mansfield arguing for a "strong executive" with the power to set aside the rule of law: Glenn Greenwald comments. Much of the intense dissatisfaction I have with the American media arises out of the fact that these extraordinary developments -- the dominant political movement advocating lawlessness and tyranny out in the open in The Wall St. Journal and Weekly Standard -- receive almost no attention.
posted by russilwvong at 11:40 PM on June 1, 2007

When a country is industrially and economically on top it will be studied for the reasons for its success. That happened to Japan and it's happening to China.

It's no surprise that businesses look longingly to China where decisions in the interest of economic wealth can be taken instantly. In Europe on the other hand there are lots of committees and hearings that slow and hamper such initiatives.
posted by jouke at 12:02 AM on June 2, 2007

Only tangentially related, I was discussing with my SO the other day the near requisite existence of totalitarian dictatorships for national capitalism to be effective. We were talking, I believe, about immigration, and the short-sighted ignorance of jingoistic Americans.

I mentioned that modern capitalism doesn't WANT pure functioning democracy, because when that happens, unions are (theoretically) allowed and (theoretically) capable of counterbalancing the interest of multinational corporations. If we had a true global, militant, unionized workers, the issue of immigration wouldn't be as strong.

But, it ISN'T in the interests of the ruling elite to have functioning democracy where workers have a say, because this leads to higher wages for all and thus less "competition" in the market for labor.

This talk of "opening the markets to China" (which is funny how China is now using the same phraseology with regards to Sudan) in order to "democratize" them is absurd.

I'm damn tired right now, but yeah... It's nice to see these bastards coming right out and admitting that pure competitive economics doesn't really allow for unionization or worker protection or even a welfare state. And his claim that we need to dismantle all these things in order to protect ourselves from those who don't have it is quite refreshing to see. No more bullshit double-speak, we're finally seeing them admit it to the rest of us how they really think and what they really want.
posted by symbioid at 12:05 AM on June 2, 2007 [2 favorites]

i fail to see what's new - or ideologically interesting - about this. the staggering efficiency of china is so ten years ago (see the effects on the US from removing MFN status from china circa 1996). but having recently watched enron - the smartest guys in the room, my cynicism regarding any suggested relationship between democracy and capitalism has reached an all-time new peak. obviously cheaters profit. obviously monopolies are successful. obviously totalitarian regimes are politically expedient. how ironic the tagline from the first link in this post reads: Under some circumstances, the rule of law must yield to the need for energy.

In-fucking-deedy. we made the bed, so now its time for us to sleep in it. i never thought there was any question that proponents of either capitalism or democracy have divergent interests. the most successful company i've worked for was not run like a democracy. what i didn't realize is that "democracy" is simply a handmaiden for the crusaders of the almighty dollar. the ethos of this country is gone. what my parents moved here for? gone. in the bigger picture, the only positive thing about democracy i can think of is the fact no two modern, western democracies have gone to war. which is undoubtedly good. one world, one people. but there is so much rage. bush and co. has been such a major blemish on this country's history. certainly, the toxicity of american politics has reached new heights without any marked improvement - or even discussion - of economic welfare. most days i think about moving to idaho and going totally bananas.

1961. Eisenhower's Farewell Address. "In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, and thus indicated the essential role that the US Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word congressional in order to placate members of the legislative branch of the federal government." (emphasis added, ^)
posted by phaedon at 12:11 AM on June 2, 2007 [1 favorite]

The economist Dani Rodrik has done some empirical research on whether democracies are less efficient, and summarizes it:

To cite again my own work, democracies deliver more stable and more predictable growth, are better at handling shocks, and deliver more equitable economic outcomes, even if in the long-run their average growth performance is no different than autocracies'. Poor and ethnically divided countries experience higher growth after making a transition to democracy. In short, democracies tend to do pretty well, and are much less prone to the fatal pathologies that Caplan worries about.

posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:21 AM on June 2, 2007

the borked "going totally bananas" link is to theroux's survivalists episode; available by navigation.
posted by phaedon at 12:24 AM on June 2, 2007

I know my personal life is much more efficient since I have adopted a dictatorial personal style. I waste practically no energy on relationships now. You should all follow my advice.
posted by srboisvert at 3:14 AM on June 2, 2007

You should all follow my advice.

You call that a dictatorial personal style? Needs work. When you can comfortably use 'must' instead of 'should' and substitute something like 'program' for 'advice,' then you'll be dictatorially stylin'.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:42 AM on June 2, 2007 [1 favorite]

The relentless pursuit of profit disproportionately benefits those who are already exorbitantly wealthy.

I am firmly committed to a good quality of life, which to me entails leisure time and not a life of constant drudgery working myself to the bone. I would be particularly opposed to that lifestyle under a dictatorship.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the countries with the highest quality of life in the world are European democracies where there is at least some value placed on leisure time and human welfare.
posted by knapah at 4:50 AM on June 2, 2007

You just fail to properly understand freedom citizen. Freedom is about free markets. All of this freedom of association and free speech stuff is all such romantic 1776 poppycock, to which of course, must be paid lip service to appease the masses.
posted by caddis at 5:07 AM on June 2, 2007 [3 favorites]

It is a myth that dictatorships are inherently efficient.

Anyone can make a mistake, including dictators. The sooner mistakes are noticed as such and corrected the less expensive the correction is. The only method shown to reliably notice mistakes is criticism [1], and if there's one thing a free society has over a dictatorship its vocal criticism.

In a dictatorship critics are silenced and mistakes pile up because no one dares to point out that they're mistakes (see: Hitler's disasterous timing for his invasion of Russia, or the way Japanese critics of the Pearl Harbor strike were silenced).

To those bold free market types advocating dictatorship because of its supposed "efficiency", I ask why (if dictatorship is so efficient) they don't support economic dictatorship. Instead of that messy, inefficient, free market we could have the efficiency of a single agency controling all the resources, allocating them according to rational guidelines, etc. Hmmmm... Wait, I think that's been tried before, there's a word for it. Yeah! They called it "Communism", so obviously if dictatorships are more efficient than free government then Communism must be more efficien than this stupid capitalism we're trying now, right?

And of course, on the surface Communism *does* look more efficient. Capitalism involves a great deal of inherent inefficiency (the duplication of R&D efforts by competing companies, for example), but we know that the centralized control of Communism doesn't work in the real world.

What these pro-dictator people seem to be missing is that people have tried dictatorship, several times, and the supposedly inefficient free nations always beat the dictatorships, just as capitalism produces a more efficient economy than Communism does. If dictatorships were really so efficient, then why did Germany lose both world wars and Japan lose one? Or why is China *still* a povert wracked hellhole despite being an "efficien" dictatorship?

If dictatorship was really efficient then we could discuss just ow much dictatorship we'd be willing to tolerate for the increased efficiency it'd give us. But dictatorship isn't efficient, so discussing it on that basis is as silly as talking about using alchemy to turn lead into gold. The basic assumption for the discussion is false, so why discuss the minutae?

[1] Naturally its quite possible to be critical of non-mistakes as well as mistakes.
posted by sotonohito at 5:13 AM on June 2, 2007

The thing people are missing is that these "free market totalitarian" governments are all nominally socialist.
posted by delmoi at 6:56 AM on June 2, 2007

What inevitably occurs among some experts and professionals is their armchair conceit. They use their status to get away with poor reasoning and anyone with a better exposure to critical thinking can debunk them, but it is never apparent that they were debunked because when it comes from a fellow expert, it is assumed to be a controversy, and when it comes from anyone else it is assumed they lack the necessary experience (because most people naturally assume that reasoning has different rules for each field).
posted by Brian B. at 7:35 AM on June 2, 2007

Mahablog: Too Easy--...In other words, in the name of “the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government” the President has given himself dictatorial powers whenever he gets in the mood to exercise them, and Congress has been relieved of its power to check him. ...
posted by amberglow at 7:42 AM on June 2, 2007

Consider the career of Hjalmar Schacht.
posted by gimonca at 8:15 AM on June 2, 2007

Nazi Germany's economy, post-1932, grew to be a powerhouse to be reckoned with

But Imperial Germany's economy, pre-1914, grew to be a powerhouse to be reckoned with.

Democratic West Germany's economy, post-1945, grew to be a powerhouse to be reckoned with. In fact, the richest and most successful German economy ever, and the world's biggest exporter.

Even Communist East Germany's economy was the strongest economy of the Soviet empire, and wasn't dependent on military expansion, slave populations and the looting of foreign territories to fund an unsustainable public spending deficit, policies that resulted in the utter and complete devastation of Germany.

The Nazi economic record, I'd argue, is disastrous. They just had shiny toys, marketed themselves well, and were in power for too little time for the results of their lunatic economic policies to become apparent. It is untrue that the Nazis rescued Germany from the Depression, and it is untrue that Fascism is evil but efficient. Fascism didn't work in Italy, it didn't work in Spain, it didn't work in Argentina, it didn't work in Portugal. We should not regard freedom and prosperity as trade-offs, as an either/or option, at least not based on the example of Fascism.
posted by alasdair at 8:26 AM on June 2, 2007 [2 favorites]

Most Support U.S. Guarantee Of Health Care:

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Reminds me of the classic 'At least the trains run on time' comment about fascist Italy.

They didn't run on time.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:46 AM on June 2, 2007

In a free market, people are free to say that no amount of money is worth working that 21st hour in a week

and:

You just fail to properly understand freedom citizen. Freedom is about free markets

my response:

Free markets without democratic-socialist intervention result in the Gilded Age era of corporations enjoying disproportionate power over labor.

You'd like to work only 40 hrs, but the Company owns every productive enterprise, including the brothels, within 20 miles. You'd like to engage in "industrial action" to pressure the Company to better working conditions, but the Company has Pinkerton on speed-dial (not that it matters, since Pinkerton has agents within your labor organization already). You'd move, but Libertopia is a patch-work of Company towns from sea to shining sea, and Walmart.

You'd like to take that 15 tour of the national parks with your family, but your dotcom employer has 3,000 superior programmers in India on a waiting list for a job like yours.

caddis is right about free markets and democratic pablum like the Constitution, Bill of Rights ,etc. Which is why I am a left-libertarian and not vanilla libertarian.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:55 AM on June 2, 2007

It is untrue that the Nazis rescued Germany from the Depression

while I agreed with everything else you wrote, it is my understanding that Hitler indeed put Germany back to work. AFAIK Hitler didn't get 90% of the popular vote in 1934 through intimidation or fraud. Everyone agrees that by the late 30s the wheels were coming off the cart, motivating more Nazi expansionism.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:02 AM on June 2, 2007

Lies, damned lies and statistics. As usual, the right wing are not satisfied with their own interpretation of reality, but want their own reality. The economies of a lot of these dictatorships were pretty stagnant in the 50s-70s, when the EU, US and Japan were growing strongly. The economies of the rich countries grew more than twice as quickly in 50-73 as they did from 74-00. By choosing the dataset carefully it's easy to show better growth for the totalitarian regimes. The Soviet economy collapsed in the early 90's, so it's no surprise that they grew quckly, recovering lost ground. China liberalised its economy in the same timeframe. Also some of the growth is due to Western capital moving to these countries for cheap manufacturing, evening out the differences a little.

I think the author of the first link has been reading too many Gibson novels and smoking weed, dreaming of a franchulate on every corner. These bloodsucking scumfucks just want to remove any obstacle in their relentless pursuit of the filthy lucre. If they think they can manage better without the inconvenience of an enfranchised labour force, then that's what they'll pursue.
posted by Jakey at 10:16 AM on June 2, 2007

Heywood: Well, fair enough. How about we agree that the deficit spending and enormous public works employed could only be paid for by, for example, looting the Austrian and Czechoslovakian treasuries, and killing prosperous German citizens and stealing their property? We can all get behind a Keynesian deficit spending model to some degree, but one reliant on invasion and genocide is not a long-term solution: as you observe, it wasn't even a medium- or short-term solution.
posted by alasdair at 10:52 AM on June 2, 2007

Does democracy require economic success?

That's not the interesting question, nor is it "Does democracy inspire economic success?"

The interesting question is "Does democracy best serve the interests of the people?"

As kirkaracha notes above, most Americans support universal, government-supported health care and are willing to pay higher taxes to get it.

Can our "democracy" (republic) achieve that? Would a more direct democracy?

I likely agree with the conservative totalitarians, but coming from the other side. A benevolent dictator would clearly be the most efficient *and* the most representative of the public will.

The problem, however, is that benevolent dictators don't exist in reality, at least not in the human race.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:00 AM on June 2, 2007

You'd like to work only 40 hrs, but the Company owns every productive enterprise, including the brothels, within 20 miles.

It doesn't sound like you're describing a free market.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:19 AM on June 2, 2007

Does democracy require economic success?

No - but capitalism does. Grow or die. A socialistic system can be managed with little or no growth, but unfettered capitalism must continually expand. Never mind that that's impossible.(Also, never believe anyone who says they believe in free markets. Free markets don't exist; "the believers" are simply statists who are already benefiting from the rules as they are.)

As for today's American dictator(s), I submit you should look to the insurance, banking, and oil industries rackets.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:35 AM on June 2, 2007 [3 favorites]

It doesn't sound like you're describing a free market.

It does, however, sound like s/he's describing the logic outcome of one.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:18 PM on June 2, 2007 [5 favorites]

^ historical outcome, actually. ;)
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2007

Is it just me, or have conservatives been waxing poetic about the benefits of dictatorship lately?

Lately?


"In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War.... the vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished.... whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world." -Winston Churchill, 1935.
posted by Avenger at 12:38 PM on June 2, 2007

Can't we send these people off to North Korea or Turkmenistan or even Zimbabwe to get a closer look at the efficiency of dictatorships?
posted by dilettante at 12:44 PM on June 2, 2007

It doesn't sound like you're describing a free market.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:19 AM on June 2 [+][!]

How about: You'd like to work 40 hrs at Wal-Mart, but you're stuck working 36 hours so they can pay you part-time wages with zero benefits. Minimum wage is only $6 so you have to pick up other jobs to feed your family (at Wal-Mart). You vote Republican to keep your children safe from the terrorists that hate you for your freedom.

Good old wage slavery, serfs that oppress themselves.
posted by mek at 12:54 PM on June 2, 2007 [2 favorites]

'benefits'? There are no benefits in free market. You get what you can individually negotiate, and not a penny more.

The fundamental flaw of the naive fairlyland free-marketeerism of eg. this Dr Elvis guy is the failure to understand that the bulk of employment on this planet, in a free market, is highly fungible, so that the whip hand belongs to the employer.

We all can't be doctors, lawyers, and other professionals with the power to set the terms of our employment [at a sufficiently comfortable level]. Somebody's got to clean the toilets at night. Europe had this debate in the first half of the 20th century and hit upon social democracy. America, thanks to an open frontier -- land & opportunity for the taking -- has had the luxury of postponing this, with slight hiccups with FDR & LBJ excepted.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:35 PM on June 2, 2007

Wal-Mart? Didn't they buy out Weyland-Yutani last year? The RoboBrothel doesn't seem as well managed anymore...
posted by pax digita at 1:37 PM on June 2, 2007

So distressing to the whole theory that Europe is doing so well.
posted by Twang at 1:40 PM on June 2, 2007

This "free-market" cry is the classic example of issue-framing. The term has been coopted by the elite and sold to the extent that the public actually believes that we: a) have a free market, and, b)have a government and business community that believes in free markets.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If we had a free market, there would be no stock market, no trading rules, no labor laws, no usury laws, no bank deposit insurance, etc., etc., etc. We, obviously (and rightly), have a highly regulated market. "Free-market" is the rallying cry of the rich who believe that the working class isn't getting screwed enough.

There is nothing noble about free markets - in fact, serfdom lies that way.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:52 PM on June 2, 2007 [4 favorites]

"Free-market" is the rallying cry of the rich who believe that the working class isn't getting screwed enough.

Totally. What we have is corporate welfare and protections, and specific industry and profession and investor welfare and protections. Doctors, Lawyers, etc--most well-paying professions are protected, while the rest of us aren't.
posted by amberglow at 3:06 PM on June 2, 2007

It doesn't sound like you're describing a free market.

On the contrary, it's quite free. You're free to quit your job and start a competing business. The "free market" says nothing about whether competitors have to be successful, after all...
posted by ubernostrum at 3:21 PM on June 2, 2007

mrgrimm I'd argue that the trick is not democracy per se, but rather democracy coupled with difficult to change guarantees of freedom. Democracy is great, I like it, but if everything (including rights, etc) is decided by a 50% +1 majority then the 50% -1 can get massively screwed...

I like the US system of a constitution that's difficult, but not impossible, to change. It allows necessary flexibility in the face of a changing world, but at the same time makes the threshold for change so high that its quite unlikely (though of course not not impossible) for, say, trial by jury to be voted out when some people get scared. If *enough* people get scared it can still happen, but it takes a lot more than 50% +1.

As for benevolant dictators there's problems beyond the simple fact of their non-existence. Even if you find one, can you guarantee that his subordinants are also benevolant? Absent the sort of checks, balances, and transparency we find in free societies even if the man on top is benevolant, his subordinants could be doing unpleasant things that he's unaware of, and won't be aware of because there isn't a system of transparancy. And then comes the question of "what happens when the benevolant dictator dies"? Who gets to be the next dictator and do you think he'll be as benevolant?

I'll also agree with the people who think that the "oooh, dictatorships are sooo cool" crowd are really just looking for an opportunity to *really* bust unions and employee rights. They lust after the Robber Barron era.
posted by sotonohito at 3:51 PM on June 2, 2007

The "we don't really have a free market" thing still feeds the "Free market = good" meme.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:20 PM on June 2, 2007

The main flaw in this author's reasoning is his selection of samples: "Economically Free Countries Without Political Freedom"? A businessman, worker or consumer in a country without political freedom may enjoy economic freedom only up to a point: namely where his economic choices start affecting the interests of the ruling elite or its political directives. Apart from the obvious danger of corruption, there are less obvious overlaps between the political and the economical. Restrictions on freedom of speech affect the economic freedoms of media companies, and also have insidious effects on economic information. China's current boom is linked to its authoritarian demographic policies, but those same demographic policies my induce an economic meltdown in 1-2 generations due to an ageing population.

There is no such thing as an "economically free, politically unfree" country. What there are, are (momentarily) economically successful dictatorships and autocracies. And even "economic success" remains a slithery beast to define: according to the CIA World Factbook, in GDP per capita terms, Equatorial Guinea, a lugubrious hellhole by any other measure, is the fourth wealthiest country in the world, and probably the fastest-growing economy in the world by far. In fact, this only indicates that a humongous oil wealth is going straight into the hands of very, very few Equatorian Guineans, while the rest of the populations remains firmly in the Stone Age...
posted by Skeptic at 4:22 PM on June 2, 2007 [1 favorite]

Does democracy require economic success?

No, Capitalism does - and conservatives have been tying capitalism to democracy for so long you can find even the most intelligent Americans believe the two to be synonymous. Same goes for the way they have tied socialism to communism. Unregulated capitalism is just about the most brutal form of world government ever invented. It enslaves, poisons and brutalizes more in a year than Stalin, Hitler and Mao did during their lifetimes.
posted by any major dude at 5:42 PM on June 2, 2007 [2 favorites]

Equatorial Guinea, a lugubrious hellhole by any other measure, is the fourth wealthiest country in the world

Well, you know. A rising tide lifts all ships...
posted by verb at 6:07 PM on June 2, 2007

On the contrary, it's quite free. You're free to quit your job and start a competing business.


This is a fallacy of ambiguity. People simple aren't free unless they can afford it, which makes your definition conditionally so. If people went around saying, "I believe that the market defines freedom" then it would be clear.

Besides the fact that conservatives miss the point of freedom (ie, happiness, common welfare, civil rights, etc), it doesn't matter whether they miss it by cognitive dissonance, or fundamentalist indoctrination or some other dogma. The disturbing part is that they as dead wrong as creationists on evolution and theocratists on religious freedom.

Freedom and prosperity are counter-intuitive and is not ordered up by anyone. To the contrary, it happens or exists when people are highly restricted as to what they cannot do to each other--because the would-be victim is declared free and equal. So they find another way or pay higher wages or develop new processes, and in this environment a robust demand-side economy is born.
posted by Brian B. at 8:41 AM on June 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

People simple aren't free unless they can afford it

Libertarianism: all the freedom/liberty/justice/social services you can afford, and not one penny more.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:54 AM on June 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
posted by SisterHavana at 12:22 PM on June 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

And he's done it--in very large (and enduring) ways.
posted by amberglow at 12:51 PM on June 3, 2007

Christ, it's like these people never had a democratic theory class—
Democracies work at least in part because they distribute the responsibility of governance. They're more efficient, especially when the distortions of limited information are figured in.
And it's not just me that sez so (appeal to authority coming): This theme shows up in Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, Machiavelli's Prince, Rousseau's Social Contract, Locke's Second Treatise, all of Utilitarian thought. This is, like, first year political theory stuff, and any legitimate class gives the back and forth. Didn't they ever have to argue against Plato or Hobbes?

"'benefits'? There are no benefits in free market. You get what you can individually negotiate, and not a penny more. "

Well, no. Something that annoys me is that arguments over the role of labor in a free market are always based on different axioms. Sure, OK, in a free market (or, to get classical, a "state of nature" or a "state of war,"), employers should hire or fire whomever they like. But workers have that same unbounded right to ally with each other, and form unions. At which point, employers are free to use whatever union busting techniques they see fit, including violence (in a "free" market), just as unions are allowed to use violence if they feel that it will advance their interests.
The problem comes when people wish to invoke some protections against ultimate freedom, but not others. There is no inherent protection of life or property (I've become a positivist after long struggling with a supportable natural rights position) save what we create. If there are no bounding checks on this freedom, everyone suffers (though, again, it's only immoral per se), thus we create laws and regulations with the goal of ultimately benefitting all of us. If the laws and protections don't benefit all of us, we can break them with impugnity, which ultimately leads back to a foundation of mob democracy.
And, granted, this kind of assumes an existential perfect actor, unconstrained by thoughts of society. But I'd argue that when the laws don't benefit everyone, even if they benefit some more than others, the society will ultimately grow corrupt and rot from within (because when you don't see your interests broadly protected within a system, you'll take every opportunity to subvert that system).
I also realize that this is all a very Western post-war vantage point, but still. Dictatorships still require democracy; the dictator is still a man, and still requires men to support him. What it doesn't require is uncoerced democracy, but that will always ultimately distort the governance of the dictator away from what will be supported democractically. Not to get all Fukuyama, y'know. And this isn't to say that distortions will ultimately come within the span of a lifetime, though I think that advances in technology (especially communications technology) will help to make governance less stable (which I think is good). And democracies have their own problems, which we mitigate somewhat here in the states.

(God, you can hardly tell that I almost never drink coffee except for this morning).
posted by klangklangston at 1:12 PM on June 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

There is no inherent protection of life or property

what does the following bit:

save what we create

mean? In my worldview, we should enjoy sovereignity over ourselves and that which we create or purchase -- goods and IP.

My recent conversion to Georgist thought ~5 years ago informed me of the difference between Land -- that which (by definition) nobody created through labor, and all other forms of property, which does involve labor and thus inherent property rights attach thereby, in a hopefully common-sense manner.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:36 PM on June 3, 2007

what's Georgist thought?

Dictatorships still require democracy; the dictator is still a man, and still requires men to support him. What it doesn't require is uncoerced democracy, but that will always ultimately distort the governance of the dictator away from what will be supported democractically.
Supporting a dictator or propping him up or enforcing his will does not equal democracy in any way. Dictatorships only require subordination and obedience and power to suppress. Where's the people's input in that kind of situation? Where is their voice? Where are the mechanisms like voting or political debate and dissent? Who chose the dictator? Were people allowed to run against him? Did the media allow non-sanctioned views? ...
posted by amberglow at 2:08 PM on June 3, 2007

The Media is Priming the Pump for A Dictatorship in America -- ...What's the old axiom? Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures? Letting the government eavesdrop on our conversations would have been unthinkable ten years ago. Opening a concentration camp in Guantanamo and building new ones in the United States would have raised the worst kind of fear in American hearts. The thought of our government using torture would have never been raised. This latest ploy by the administration, this decree that the President will usurp the power of Congress and the Courts making him a de-facto dictator in the event of another terrorist attack would never have been accepted by Americans prior the September 11th, 2001. ...
posted by amberglow at 2:20 PM on June 3, 2007

Letting the government eavesdrop on our conversations would have been unthinkable ten years ago. Opening a concentration camp in Guantanamo and building new ones in the United States would have raised the worst kind of fear in American hearts.

Even more interesting, it would've raised the harshest "It's time for revolution" criticism from the same ideological camps who now support it.
posted by verb at 2:28 PM on June 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

The far right's coming wave (when all the new Timothy McVeighs come marching home)
posted by amberglow at 3:12 PM on June 3, 2007

Henry George. The man, if you believe its proponents, that neoclassical economics was created to silence :)
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:27 PM on June 3, 2007

"what does the following bit:

save what we create

mean? In my worldview, we should enjoy sovereignity over ourselves and that which we create or purchase -- goods and IP."

The "what we create" referred to protections. There are no protections that are not, ultimately, consentual. I don't jack your shit because I don't want to live in a world where my shit is randomly jacked.

"Supporting a dictator or propping him up or enforcing his will does not equal democracy in any way. Dictatorships only require subordination and obedience and power to suppress. Where's the people's input in that kind of situation? Where is their voice? Where are the mechanisms like voting or political debate and dissent? Who chose the dictator? Were people allowed to run against him? Did the media allow non-sanctioned views? ..."

Yes, it does. Where does the power to suppress come from? No dictator can govern outside of himself without consent. The people's voice and input comes in the choice between living under a tyrant or dying to oppose a tyrant. I realize that's a bleak choice (hence the "perfect existential actor" note above), but it's a choice that everyone who's ever fought for justice against a state has made (and, of course, that choice is made with a rough estimate of risk). Obviously, Ghandi, Martin Luther King jr., Martin Luther, George Washington, Sandino, Zapata, Castro, etc. etc. all made this same choice.
But because you raise questions about dissent and voting, now's a good time to distinguish a couple of concepts (which is kinda obnoxious, because they've all got similar/same names): There's what I'd back-of-notebook call Existential or Ultimate Democracy, which would be an axiomatic state-of-nature argument— that all people are ultimately governed by people. If there is a God, God's will is sufficiently unclear to be a terrible basis for any claims of governmental legitimacy. Then there's Classical Democracy, which is stuff like Athens and Sparta— No conception of individual rights, ultimate morality comes from serving the society, voting or consensus is used to decide major policy (though there was usually some practical delegation of responsibility). This is what a lot of philosophers, especially Socratics, railed against. This is where core efficiency arguments start to take hold too. But the difference is individual rights, as dissent could be punishable by death. Then there's Modern Democracy, which is what most of the West has now, and when most major political institutions were formed. There's some sense of individual rights, which we use to mitigate the power of the democracy. In Athens, if the majority of folks thought that having a wonk-eye was punishable by death, they'd just round up all the wonk-eyes and be done with them.
There's also the Democrats, who muddy the water even more.

But, so, a lot of the arguments about dissent and media are from a modern perspective (as is this FPP, to some extent), and kind of take democracy to already represent a good. Which it only kinda is.
posted by klangklangston at 8:33 PM on June 3, 2007

and kind of take democracy to already represent a good. Which it only kinda is.
I'm totally with you on that.

What's the baseline, global, not just modern or classical or place or time-specific, etc, definition of Democracy? Is there one?
posted by amberglow at 6:50 PM on June 4, 2007

Um... It's etymological— Demos=masses, Kratia=power/rule by. Aside from that, it's one of those words that's a ball of connotations without a good single sense (dictionaries are kinda obnoxiously useless on this, because they default to descriptivism, which means that they use the most common meaning, which is Western representative democracy).
But that's really incredibly broad, analogous but even less specific than "liberal," which is similarly fucked.
Which is why, when Bush starts talking about "spreading democracy," it's a totally bizarro hodgepodge of idealist rhetoric and realpolitik. He doesn't know what it means, he hasn't given it much thought (or if he has, he hasn't done so with any particular wisdom or come to any real non-tautological conclusions), and he doesn't understand it outside of ideology (ie as a system which has its own distortions upon the actors within it, and has inherent tensions).
And that annoys the hell out of me, especially because it leaves us ill-prepared to deal with both the democratic challenges of Iraq (Shia control, majoritarianism), and the anti-democratic challenges (terrorism, corruption, individual rights).
But hey, we really don't need another reason to think that the invasion of Iraq was totally a terrible idea at this point, right?
posted by klangklangston at 8:17 AM on June 5, 2007

well, rule by the masses is a start as a baseline. Dictatorships don't really do that. We actually could be seen as no longer one either.

Meanwhile, Palestine had elections and the majority chose Hamas. What did we do? We cut off all aid because they picked the wrong people or something.
posted by amberglow at 8:07 PM on June 5, 2007

Again, two replies to your first part: The argument of ultimate democracy is that even in a dictatorship, power does ultimately come from the masses, even if it comes through the inaction or coerced action of the masses. Second, the US is a representative democracy, which is one of the post-democractic forms.
More interestingly, the two biggest 20th Century political "innovations," both termed dictatorships and enemies of democracy, fascism and communism, are explicitly post-democratic forms that existed as critiques of representative democracy.

And yeah, one of those things that people don't get is that freedom means allowing other people to do things you disagree with. I think Hamas was a poor (though totally understandable, especially given the corruption) choice, and it's unfortunate that we've reacted like we have. Though, y'know, it's pretty low on the list of unconscionable fuckups from the Bush administration, so I'm content to let it ride.
posted by klangklangston at 10:33 PM on June 5, 2007

The argument of ultimate democracy is that even in a dictatorship, power does ultimately come from the masses, even if it comes through the inaction or coerced action of the masses.

This makes no sense. If the people have no voice then they're not represented. Rule by force alone or suppression or coercion alone is not mass-driven or population-driven--it's imposed on them no matter what they want. It's solely top-down, and nonresponsive to the needs and wants and desires and actions of the people, instead of democracy which is supposed to be the people deciding in some way.
posted by amberglow at 5:14 PM on June 6, 2007

Think of it this way— how does the classic dictatorship end? (We'll ignore Iraq). Through a popular revolution.

Even with a gun to your head, there is always the choice between acceding to demands and dying for what you believe. If a dictator kills everyone, they'll have no one to govern. If they govern otherwise, people have made the choice (exercised their voice) that whatever injustice isn't worth dying over. That's the people deciding in some way. Votes don't have to be open to reflect the will of the people.
posted by klangklangston at 5:54 PM on June 6, 2007

Even with a gun to your head, there is always the choice between acceding to demands and dying for what you believe. If a dictator kills everyone, they'll have no one to govern. If they govern otherwise, people have made the choice . . .

I don't think very many people would seriously characterize that as a choice and I don't think you are, either.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:40 AM on June 7, 2007

Unless we abandon welfare programs, he suggests, the free world might be overwhelmed by the staggering efficiency of free-market totalitarianism.

Spurious nonsense. Abandoning welfare programmes is the same fascist wet dream we always hear from fringe nutjobs.

What we need to abandon are these hugely expensive and wasteful military projects. The cost of one nuclear weapon could fund an entire free health care system.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:58 AM on June 7, 2007

Even with a gun to your head, there is always the choice between acceding to demands and dying for what you believe.

That's individual freedom and free will, not democracy. Dictatorships are not set up for input, so the only choices that remain under them are rebellion, sabotage or acquiesence. Those choices always exist under any sort of system, no matter what it is.
posted by amberglow at 8:16 AM on June 7, 2007

Doesn't a democracy have to have at least some form of input and choice built formally into the system, even if the real power is not bestowed by, or inherent in, the mass of people?
posted by amberglow at 8:21 AM on June 7, 2007

"Doesn't a democracy have to have at least some form of input and choice built formally into the system, even if the real power is not bestowed by, or inherent in, the mass of people?"

No, that's an assumption of modern democracy. This might be easier to think of if you look at the criticisms of democracy— When Plato charts the descent of a government through oligarchy to democracy, his twin arguments are (because he sees two phases of democracy) that a) democracies are bad because they rely on privileging the individual over tradition (filial piety), and that b) they inevitably slip into mob rule. While I don't agree with the inevitable part, you'll note that mob rule is both democratic and about as informal as possible. (A better post-Plato critique would be extrapolating on his argument that attempts to reign in the instability of the masses lead inexorably to the concentration of governmental power into small groups, but you'll note that the people have to CHOOSE these small groups, and that they're usually welcomed).

"That's individual freedom and free will, not democracy. Dictatorships are not set up for input, so the only choices that remain under them are rebellion, sabotage or acquiesence. Those choices always exist under any sort of system, no matter what it is."

Yes, those choices exist under any sort of system— that's why I keep saying "ultimate democracy."

"I don't think very many people would seriously characterize that as a choice and I don't think you are, either."

I noted my caveats above, but yes, it is. It's the same choice that people make when defending any country, or in standing up to any oppression. The perception of risk will shape choices, but fundamentally that's what every popular rebellion ever has been faced with, and they all chose to believe that there are some things more important than life.
posted by klangklangston at 8:44 AM on June 7, 2007

I noted my caveats above, but yes, it is.

Whatever that's supposed to mean. Having a gun at your head and being told to do X or get your brains blown out is about as absolute a no-choice situation as there is. In other words, bullshit.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:13 AM on June 7, 2007

No, it's about as absolute a COERCED choice as there is. But that doesn't mean it's not a choice, as plenty of people have refused to compromise their beliefs in the face of certain death.

The caveats were "assuming perfect existential actors."
posted by klangklangston at 3:29 PM on June 7, 2007

but formalized mobrule (with or without protections for minorities or any other rights) is Democracy.
posted by amberglow at 3:34 PM on June 7, 2007

(A better post-Plato critique would be extrapolating on his argument that attempts to reign in the instability of the masses lead inexorably to the concentration of governmental power into small groups, but you'll note that the people have to CHOOSE these small groups, and that they're usually welcomed)

Exactly--people Choose. If the mob chooses themselves and others like them, that's democracy. If they choose a Parliament or a Congress or a Council of Hobbits, that's democracy too. If they choose a strongman, that's democracy as well, up until the point where the strongman stops elections and stops allowing opposition parties and non-controlled media, etc.
posted by amberglow at 3:37 PM on June 7, 2007

or, rather--up until the point where the strongman changes the system and takes choice away .
posted by amberglow at 3:38 PM on June 7, 2007

And fundamentally my disagreement with that is that there is always a choice.
posted by klangklangston at 3:45 PM on June 7, 2007

but if we're talking about systems of governance and ways of organizing societies, etc, at least some choices should really be built in and inherent. If no choices are built in, then it's not democracy.
posted by amberglow at 6:03 PM on June 7, 2007

... plenty of people have refused to compromise their beliefs in the face of certain death.

Except for those who also believed that they were going to be killed anyway, whether they compromised their beliefs or not, I don't believe that 'plenty of people' have done that.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:57 AM on June 8, 2007

"but if we're talking about systems of governance and ways of organizing societies, etc, at least some choices should really be built in and inherent. If no choices are built in, then it's not democracy."

Well, I agree on the first part— If we're talking about systems of governance and organizing societies, some choices should be built in and ideally formalized. But that's because I believe that explicit, non-coerced democracy (mitigated by liberal insitutions, etc. etc.) is the best way to run a state in terms of maximizing happiness and minimizing harm.

"Except for those who also believed that they were going to be killed anyway, whether they compromised their beliefs or not, I don't believe that 'plenty of people' have done that."

Really? You don't believe that plenty of people have made a choice that a) guaranteed death and b) placed some other value over their own life? Frankly, if you can't think of examples from protesting monks lighting themselves on fire to the 9/11 hijackers, from Jews during the Inquisition to the original Zealots, etc. etc., you just aren't trying very hard. There are people the world over who would gladly die for a cause. There is always a choice.
posted by klangklangston at 8:08 AM on June 8, 2007

See what you did there? I do. You changed the situation from people being told to do something or die to people choosing to die when they were not otherwise in direct peril. You cannot seriously be claiming that suicidal religious nutjobs are equivalent to there being 'choice' when someone's holding a gun to a normal person's head.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:59 AM on June 8, 2007

Well, aside from the fact that I doubt either of us will come up with specific examples of a person with a gun to their head having to make a choice, and that it takes either an abruptly curtailed intelligence or an especially uncharitable reading not to see the metaphor for what it was, I can reel off examples like Giordano Bruno, or The Báb. It's even so common that there's a word for it: "martyr."
posted by klangklangston at 11:35 AM on June 8, 2007

So far, your "plenty of people" is up to two, and one of them is another religious fanatic. "Even with a gun to your head, there is always the choice between acceding to demands and dying for what you believe" is not a metaphor for religious fanaticism, and that particular brand of mental instability is not what this discussion was about.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:22 PM on June 8, 2007

Aww, you're so cute, Kirth.
So, what you want from me is to agree to your retarded terms (that anyone who dies for an ideology is either a fanatic or mentally ill), and you want me to catalogue all the martyrs that have died for some cause or another because you can't concede that it's happened "plenty" of times?
Why would I bother with that?

I mean, how do you propose to demonstrate that there isn't always a choice? All I need is one example where someone has chosen imminent death over renunciation, which demonstrates the possibility of a choice. From there, if a choice is available to someone in a situation, it must be available to everyone in a similar situation. And the choice is always "Is this worth dying for?" Everything else that's known at that moment modifies the perception of risk, not the existence of a choice.
Aside from that, spend some time with Foucault and see if you can't work past your dismissal of other belief systems (Madness and Civilization). Or you could always try Chantal Mouffe's critique of Rawls, which has within it a bunch of excellent post-structuralist arguments about how the equality of a democracy requires that beliefs qua beliefs be taken at face value (which doesn't mean that they're uncontested).
posted by klangklangston at 12:42 PM on June 8, 2007

(Not to just namedrop and jet, but one of the points that Mouffe makes is that rationality is always defined as a practical political project by the majority, or altern, with the explicit function of excluding the subaltern, and because of that [and the fact that there will never be a consistent and coherently rational ideology that all members of a society adhere to in a modern pluralist state] beliefs should be given spaces to contend.)
posted by klangklangston at 12:50 PM on June 8, 2007

See, I know you're getting defensive when you call me 'cute' and start in with 'retarded.' It's what you always do when somebody points out how full of shit your undergrad arguments are.

All I need is one example where someone has chosen imminent death over renunciation ...

No, all you need to do is show how "plenty of people" have done that. You're not going to, because it didn't happen. And it's not me who's saying that anyone who dies for an ideology is either a fanatic or mentally ill - those are the people you've come up with, possibly excepting Bruno (and even he tried to wriggle out with a partial recanting). Choosing a non-inevitable death is not common, and it's not even smart. A dead partisan can't do any more to change the circumstances that led to the gun at his head. A live one might be able to.

You want to come into the thread and drop all the pearls of wisdom you learned this semester in your college classes, and make like that's meaningful in this context. It isn't. It's bullshit.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:03 PM on June 8, 2007

I'm calling you cute because you're spinning your wheels— you don't have an argument to make, and you're attempting to pretend that you do by carping on the meaning of "plenty," and further pretending that faith disqualifies one from making a choice.

I mean, how many is "plenty," Kirth? Blandina, Pothinus? Do I have to list every 9/11 attacker who could have stopped the attack, yet chose to die? Do I have to round up a reference to every soldier to die rather than abandon a position? Do I have to provide an index of every kamikaze pilot?
Dismissing them as fanatics misses the point, Kirth, and is emblematic of an ultimately futile worldview. Prove they're mentally ill in a way that doesn't ultimately use circular reasoning, and I'll concede the point. Otherwise, the Foucault argument is salient.

Is this the dominant choice? No, and only a moron would think I was arguing it as such. Are there plenty of people who have, over the course of history, chosen death over dishonor or apostacy or treason? Yes, and I can't believe that you're seriously arguing otherwise. Was it because I didn't say "figurative gun to their head"?

Again, Kirth, I'm not calling you a moron because I'm feeling defensive— I'm pointing out that your argument is unsupportable, that your dismissal of any outlyers as "fanatics" is intellectually dishonest, and that you're not able to make any serious counter-claim that can't immediately be blown full of holes.

"You want to come into the thread and drop all the pearls of wisdom you learned this semester in your college classes, and make like that's meaningful in this context. It isn't. It's bullshit."

Feel free to put forth a competing argument, Kirth. Until then, maybe the limits of your education are showing.
posted by klangklangston at 3:21 PM on June 8, 2007

klang, that choice you talk about is open to all humans in all types of systems at all times, no matter what. It's no good as an example of choice or democracy under a dictatorship.
posted by amberglow at 3:58 PM on June 8, 2007

We're always free to choose to kill ourselves for any reason. We were free to choose to do that under slavery, under feudalism, under theocracies, under kings, under councils, under dictators, under Kings, under Dukes, under Czars, under Fuhrers, under Presidents, under Prime Ministers, etc--in all poltical and societal systems that have ever existed. That kind of choice is always available, and it doesn't make a dictatorship into a democracy.
posted by amberglow at 4:01 PM on June 8, 2007

I mean, how do you propose to demonstrate that there isn't always a choice? All I need is one example where someone has chosen imminent death over renunciation, which demonstrates the possibility of a choice.

Forcing someone to choose is not a valid choice for the victim for several reasons.

If someone puts a gun to someone's head and tells them to choose X, or die, then they are only being forced to do something against their will, and if it against their will, then they didn't choose it. If someone argues that they can always choose to die instead, then this is equally naive, because if the gun jammed, they wouldn't normally stick around to die either and their honor is never questioned by fighting back or running because there was no honor in the enforcer to betray. Therefore no willful choice was made.

Another reason, assuming that one special argument designed to thwart common sense, is that willfully choosing to die for one's "beliefs" is presupposing another enforcer who won't let the zealot off the hook in the next life if they artificially choose to do something against their will in order to survive.

Overall, this is why libertarianism and their choice arguments are not only unsophisticated, but instead point to a pathology of choice, and not a philosophy of choice.
posted by Brian B. at 5:35 PM on June 8, 2007

Amberglow— Again, the fundamental thing I'm saying here, and I'm not sure how I can be more clear, is that the argument of ultimate democracy DOES apply to every system of government.

I admit that it might seem like an atheistic liberal cooption of Natural Rights arguments, but I think that it's a lot more supportable (in that Natural Rights require a Creator, whereas an ultimate democracy argument would only require that free will exist and that laws governing humanity aren't external to humanity).

It's more a way of thinking about governments and the way they function than a description of any one particular form of government. Am I explaining this clearly? Ultimate democracy would be the proposition that follows from the idea that people are all equal for practical purposes, and all able to make choices about what they think their best interests are in a society, and have thus created all governmental institutions.
Whether those were good choices, or whether they've created institutions that do serve their best interests, isn't in the argument I'm making.
But no regime, good or bad, exists without collaborators.
posted by klangklangston at 5:39 PM on June 8, 2007

"If someone puts a gun to someone's head and tells them to choose X, or die, then they are only being forced to do something against their will, and if it against their will, then they didn't choose it. If someone argues that they can always choose to die instead, then this is equally naive, because if the gun jammed, they wouldn't normally stick around to die either and their honor is never questioned by fighting back or running because there was no honor in the enforcer to betray. Therefore no willful choice was made."

Dude, that totally doesn't follow. If they choose to die rather than to do something against their will, and then they survive, they're making a different choice when they choose to leave. They're weighing different options. Nobody begrudges them because choosing to die is something that most everyone understands to be a bad outcome. The question is: Is it a worse outcome for the person making the choice at the moment they make it?

"Another reason, assuming that one special argument designed to thwart common sense, is that willfully choosing to die for one's "beliefs" is presupposing another enforcer who won't let the zealot off the hook in the next life if they artificially choose to do something against their will in order to survive."

No, it doesn't. There're people who have died for Communism, an explicitly Godless state.

"Overall, this is why libertarianism and their choice arguments are not only unsophisticated, but instead point to a pathology of choice, and not a philosophy of choice."

What are you even arguing about?
posted by klangklangston at 5:45 PM on June 8, 2007

No, it doesn't. There're people who have died for Communism, an explicitly Godless state.


Mine was the counterexample. It only needs to work specifically. Regardless, I doubt yours. Communism isn't a state per se and we're talking about a gun to someone's head and someone's beliefs. If they didn't want to give up on their friends and country, that's not the same thing. You're mindreading the facts regardless.

If they choose to die rather than to do something against their will, and then they survive, they're making a different choice when they choose to leave. They're weighing different options. Nobody begrudges them because choosing to die is something that most everyone understands to be a bad outcome.

Most everyone understands it to NOT be their choice. Weighing different options has nothing to do with it. The jammed gun was fortuitous, but showed a different honorable will after the "decision" that was labeled as their choice.

The question is: Is it a worse outcome for the person making the choice at the moment they make it?

The answer was: Refusing to make a false choice cannot be renamed as making a deliberate choice in order to make the point that there is never not a choice.
posted by Brian B. at 6:05 PM on June 8, 2007