I start strong!
Democracy is not freedom?!
It's crazy, he thinks that the dictatorship is freedom then?
It calms me to explain.
Often they say to use when there is a restriction of freedoms (of movement or expression) that one is more democracy.
"You keep me to speak! It is democracy sir! it is my right! "
There was a semantic shift (some would say a flight from concept ?!?).
In the dictionary definition is:
" Political System , system of government in which power is exercised by the people, by all citizens .
Then after reading "Democracy authoritarian, direct, liberal, parliamentary representative. ago the distinction in the air!
Interesting.
Democracy defines a political system, ie how will society be organized through a government whose power or control is in the hands of the people. Everyone will participate in decisions of government.
The word democracy comes from demos, the people and kratos, power. Power to the people.
Looking more closely at this concept, it quickly becomes vague and ambiguous.
is the people who has the power, but what the people, each of the individuals who shaped this nation or the majority (of opinion, social origin?), A supra- Individual (Just as the sum of all individuals who would form a new individual, as a kind of collective consciousness?).
And this people has the power. On whom? In general the power exerted on others. The people exercise this power on ... then himself?.
The principle of having the power implies that either people will not obey orders or whether some people are waiting for orders. There are people who do what they want or do not know what to do, and therefore must give other people power over them (so they do the right thing). It's a bit simplistic ok. The nation itself is organized?
short, the concept becomes almost contradictory. We do not need to arrange themselves one thing we want to do voluntarily.
And in all this freedom. How to empower people protect freedom?
Give a definition of freedom.
I like that of John Locke " natural liberty of man consists in being subject to any power on earth [...] , not to be subjected to the domination of any will . Will ie other human beings like us.
This is not freedom to do what I want! To be free of conditions of existence, to be free not to submit to me or subject me to Newton's laws (free of flying in the air), not to eat or not to drink. Faced with the laws of nature we are not free, and this is contradictory, because we as humans are the product of these laws of nature. Our bodies are biological properties of these by laws.
Freedom is a social relationship. It exists between individuals.
Freedom is the absence of coercion. When someone oppresses the individual X Y. Y is no longer free.
This implies that there must not submit X in turn. The only rule is to respect the freedom of others.
Is that democracy protects freedom? That is to say that giving the government control the people protect each individual who composes the people not to be submitted by another individual of the same people?
The answer, from what I said about democracy, is obviously not.
Or so we need every member of the people is completely unanimous on all issues of life and taking control of the government, orders of things (on each of the individuals of that population) which is a priori agreed to voluntarily (I know it's complicated) .
It's a bit utopian Rousseau's social contract.
In practice democracy is the majority that took power. And if the majority oppresses the minority? The members of this minority are subject to coercion by other individuals, so they are no longer free.
This is called the tyranny of democracy. This aspect of democracy was strongly criticized during the Athenian democracy.
And yes ladies and gentlemen, democracy can be a tyranny! As a king, an emperor, a caste of nobles, a Fuhrer, a Duce, a father of the little people ... etc.
Democracy does not protect freedom. It's not because I have the legitimacy of power that I can enslave individuals. And although in my platform I plan to enslave the blacks and the Arabs or the Bakers, who came to power democratically (as they say), ie by the consent of a majority, I no right to implement this program.
basically a system that provides real Freedom is a system that would provide protection to the Jews under the Nazi government. Hitler could have done nothing. That's progress!
Benjamin Constant explained that to ensure individual liberties, we must limit the power of government, or state on individuals. Even when I take the reins of power there are things I can not do.
Limiting the powers of government not only ensure the separation of powers (legislative, judiciary and executive). It merely limits the powers in the government. Must also limit the powers of government or state on individuals. Limit the scope of government or state in a variety of areas (as in the production of material goods).
That's why we enlisted the adjective to the term liberal democracy. Liberal democracy.
But one could imagine a liberal monarchy, ie a king can not enslave each member of his people.
Because liberalism seeks to protect all minorities against domination of the majority, and the smallest of minorities, which is irreducible, is the individual.
Democracy is not freedom?!
It's crazy, he thinks that the dictatorship is freedom then?
It calms me to explain.
Often they say to use when there is a restriction of freedoms (of movement or expression) that one is more democracy.
"You keep me to speak! It is democracy sir! it is my right! "
There was a semantic shift (some would say a flight from concept ?!?).
In the dictionary definition is:
" Political System , system of government in which power is exercised by the people, by all citizens .
Then after reading "Democracy authoritarian, direct, liberal, parliamentary representative. ago the distinction in the air!
Interesting.
Democracy defines a political system, ie how will society be organized through a government whose power or control is in the hands of the people. Everyone will participate in decisions of government.
The word democracy comes from demos, the people and kratos, power. Power to the people.
Looking more closely at this concept, it quickly becomes vague and ambiguous.
is the people who has the power, but what the people, each of the individuals who shaped this nation or the majority (of opinion, social origin?), A supra- Individual (Just as the sum of all individuals who would form a new individual, as a kind of collective consciousness?).
And this people has the power. On whom? In general the power exerted on others. The people exercise this power on ... then himself?.
The principle of having the power implies that either people will not obey orders or whether some people are waiting for orders. There are people who do what they want or do not know what to do, and therefore must give other people power over them (so they do the right thing). It's a bit simplistic ok. The nation itself is organized?
short, the concept becomes almost contradictory. We do not need to arrange themselves one thing we want to do voluntarily.
And in all this freedom. How to empower people protect freedom?
Give a definition of freedom.
I like that of John Locke " natural liberty of man consists in being subject to any power on earth [...] , not to be subjected to the domination of any will . Will ie other human beings like us.
This is not freedom to do what I want! To be free of conditions of existence, to be free not to submit to me or subject me to Newton's laws (free of flying in the air), not to eat or not to drink. Faced with the laws of nature we are not free, and this is contradictory, because we as humans are the product of these laws of nature. Our bodies are biological properties of these by laws.
Freedom is a social relationship. It exists between individuals.
Freedom is the absence of coercion. When someone oppresses the individual X Y. Y is no longer free.
This implies that there must not submit X in turn. The only rule is to respect the freedom of others.
Is that democracy protects freedom? That is to say that giving the government control the people protect each individual who composes the people not to be submitted by another individual of the same people?
The answer, from what I said about democracy, is obviously not.
Or so we need every member of the people is completely unanimous on all issues of life and taking control of the government, orders of things (on each of the individuals of that population) which is a priori agreed to voluntarily (I know it's complicated) .
It's a bit utopian Rousseau's social contract.
In practice democracy is the majority that took power. And if the majority oppresses the minority? The members of this minority are subject to coercion by other individuals, so they are no longer free.
This is called the tyranny of democracy. This aspect of democracy was strongly criticized during the Athenian democracy.
And yes ladies and gentlemen, democracy can be a tyranny! As a king, an emperor, a caste of nobles, a Fuhrer, a Duce, a father of the little people ... etc.
Democracy does not protect freedom. It's not because I have the legitimacy of power that I can enslave individuals. And although in my platform I plan to enslave the blacks and the Arabs or the Bakers, who came to power democratically (as they say), ie by the consent of a majority, I no right to implement this program.
basically a system that provides real Freedom is a system that would provide protection to the Jews under the Nazi government. Hitler could have done nothing. That's progress!
Benjamin Constant explained that to ensure individual liberties, we must limit the power of government, or state on individuals. Even when I take the reins of power there are things I can not do.
Limiting the powers of government not only ensure the separation of powers (legislative, judiciary and executive). It merely limits the powers in the government. Must also limit the powers of government or state on individuals. Limit the scope of government or state in a variety of areas (as in the production of material goods).
That's why we enlisted the adjective to the term liberal democracy. Liberal democracy.
But one could imagine a liberal monarchy, ie a king can not enslave each member of his people.
Because liberalism seeks to protect all minorities against domination of the majority, and the smallest of minorities, which is irreducible, is the individual.
0 comments:
Post a Comment