Why is it thought that democracy and freedom go hand in hand

Ive been wondering for some time now why it is that some if not most people think that democracy is the only government capable of harbouring freedom. If you ask me any government can have freedom, though it may sound silly for say a dictatorship to have freedom it is possible. Personally I would like a monarchy over democracy. Democracy to me is the most easily corruptible form of government there is.

I think of all the laws and regulations that today's democracies create and enforce and ask would people be just as ok with some of these laws if say a king were to decree them? I don't think they would be. I feel as if there would be great outrage over some of the laws seen in some democracies if a king were to decree such laws. Much more outrage than was possibly seen over those laws(if any was seen at all). That then begs the question of why do we accept some of the laws created by democracies when we wouldn't if those same laws were decreed by a king or queen? Then would a king or queen decree such laws in the first place?

I think it's partly to do with the fact that people feel less inclined to resist something if they had an input into the decision. That is, if someone tells you off the bat that you have to do something, you're more likely to argue against it than if it was decided by a vote in which you and others participated. That's just the way a lot of people are.

In a broader sense, it's also because of the bad experiences the world has had with the other forms of government, mainly the Nazi's for Fascism, and the U.S.S.R. for communism. And of course, the fact that those groups were fought by democratic nations also adds to our affection for it.

In addition, particularly in America, people are pretty much indoctrinated into the belief that they have freedom, and so associate freedom with their democratic governmental system.

Basically this answers it all. If you have a say into a matter you have the sense of freedom at helping the create how the system works. Only true freedom would be anarchy but I think that would also be chaos.



You make it sound like Americans don't have freedom and we are just fooling ourselves? Maybe I am just taking what you say wrong, but I feel saying we are indoctrinated makes it sound like we are living basically a lie.



Every form of government is easily corruptible. In all forms of government we have a small amount of people setting standards for a large group. That small group will always think of themselves in some ways, hence corrupted. Democracy is I think singled out as most corrupted cause we vote on these people into their office. So in some form we feel responsible for not knowing they would become corruptible.

Even in an anarchy you probably won't truly free, because in an anarchy there will likely be bullies and such who's 'freedom' involves them oppressing others who are weaker than themselves.

The only way to be truly free is to live a life completely isolated from all other sentient beings.



I can certainly understand why you thought that, but that wasn't exactly what I intended to imply. Americans certainly do have freedom, and more than a fair amount of other countries. It just seems to me that they tend to vastly overestimate how much freedom they have, and to believe that they are the only country with such freedom.

That may just be patriotism, but it kind of annoys me. Especially since I think freedom is kind of overrated, and I dislike that they try to impress there idea of freedom on others.

So Freedom in the strictest sense does not exists in the world ? If so how does one acquirer True Freedom

It's not possible. Not really. There will always be something in this universe of ours that restricts our movements and being. The only way to achieve True freedom would be to exist outside the realms of possibility and be able to manipulate the universe itself, unrestricted by the universe itself while containing the ability to create anything and achieve anything.

Basically to be some kind of omnipotent being, but whether or not you believe in that kind of thing doesn't change the fact we're all just mortal beings that can't disobey the laws of physics in such a way as I have previously stated. Unless this universe is some kind of construction you or I have created because we have grown bored of being an omnipotent being.

Although I suppose one could consider death to be true freedom, since for all we know you are no longer tied to any of the laws of physics and no longer have to obey anyone. ALthough that's just conjecture.

As for the question itself...



Can't think of a more reasonable way to put it. People will feel like they have more freedom when they can control the system they're a part of and Democracy is heavily linked to that.

It's becasue America is very good at propaganda and wanted to associate Democracy with their ideal of freedom.

The national socialist parties where democratically elected. That is not democracy promoting freedom. And let's not even get started on South American or African democracies. And now we're also finding more middle eastern democracies that are not particularly freedom minded.

It's not possible. Not really. There will always be something in this universe of ours that restricts our movements and being. The only way to achieve True freedom would be to exist outside the realms of possibility and be able to manipulate the universe itself, unrestricted by the universe itself while containing the ability to create anything and achieve anything.

Basically to be some kind of omnipotent being, but whether or not you believe in that kind of thing doesn't change the fact we're all just mortal beings that can't disobey the laws of physics in such a way as I have previously stated. Unless this universe is some kind of construction you or I have created because we have grown bored of being an omnipotent being.

Although I suppose one could consider death to be true freedom, since for all we know you are no longer tied to any of the laws of physics and no longer have to obey anyone. ALthough that's just conjecture.

As for the question itself...

So what if we but are consciousness into machines or turned it into data ? would that not make humans omni's along with all the other transcendent stuff that some folks blabber about ?


About the death thing are you implying that through death and in some form of afterlife we would not be constrained by physics and can do whatever we want ? Would we not have to be omni or reality warpers upon death to make such dreams happen ?

The whole universe construction simulation is interesting. Is there any proof to it being you know real ?

Not really. You may be able to control information and push the boundaries of knowledge to their absolute maximum (assuming that point can be reached) but there would still be some kind of restriction based on firewalls and coding restrictions, but it would probably be as close as anyone could ever become.



I suppose you could see it like that yes. But what I was implying was that in death you are released from the constraints of life and no longer have to follow the laws of our universe. You know, since you're dead. But certainly if an afterlife did exist like in the biblical tales then I would imagine that such possibilites would occur.



Well, there is a theory is String theory that suggests our entire universe is actually just one big holographic simulation based off of 'coded' information given physical form. In that sense you could assume that a conscious, all powerful being decided how that information would be coded. Other than that there is no suggestion the universe has been constructed by anything that is outside of natural reason. If I could prove I was some kind of omnipotent being, I would have sorted this universe (or at least our world) out a long time ago. It was more of a hypothetical situation I considered, nothing more really but there are so many unanswered riddles to our universe that could answer whether or not this universe is constructed by an omnipotent being or not. Always keep your mind open to the impossible.

I would like to butt in the discussion with my opinion.

Representative democracy mainly seems(not always, but enough it is a general rule) to get rich people to represent their constituents, and there will normally be a disconnect between those groups. Add lobbying, and you have more wealthy interests where not beneficial. Add voter apathy, and you get the same people, in line with the intrests of the rich, and disconnecting further from their constituents. These all combined make an (one could argue aristocratic) oligarchy. The ancient Greeks recognized this, and came up with a solution.

It's called demarchy(a lottocracy). Random people(who meet a criteria) being selected to make decisions. This is what the ancient Athenian constitution was built upon. Chance making the groups, not elections. Many Greek writers took this as the better way, as opposed to voting. This was also how the Doge of Venice was chosen(read the process on Wikipedia, it's extensive). The point of this is, more and different people with diverse ideologies, veiwpoints, and situations get into the government, making it somewhat more representative of the people of the country. That, in my opinion, would lead to more freedom than a representative democracy. There are many holes in the idea(Who is qualified and what are the qualifications? Is it feasible to do in a large country?), but representative democracy has more, and more means less freedom. This is all of course, my opinion.

A little off-topic, and sorry for that. No, I don't believe democracy and freedom go hand in hand all the time, a rather false veiw created by the US(I have no way of proving this, but it seems about right). But if it is the case that they do, a demarchy is the way with the most freedom.

I agree with a lot that's been said about this.

To add, the USA is not even a true democracy, it is a republic first, democracy second.

I also feel like the closest government democracy ever achieved was by the Athenian government. Everyone these days makes countries with the name "democracy" on it to align themselves with the world powers (mainly US) - so they are only democracy by name, not institution

Answering the original post, wow, your right on so many levels, why not have a dictator with freedom, such as a dictator that was elected by the people and he/she would make the laws and rules and choose who would go to jail and what their punishment was and how long for. But if the people ever thought he/she was straying from the path of honesty and truth we could over throw them.

Like SotY said, it's mostly due to the people having a hand in the work of the government.

To which I want to say that hand tend to not get as important as it should be.

I'll take my country, France, as an example. That is the Assembly and Senate who choose which laws will pass, except that for a lot of them they shouldn't even vote considering the importance the laws have (I think Gay Marriage would not have caused the emergence of big extremist groups if it was us who voted for it)

Also the two assembly won't of course vote laws that would limit their rights.

The main problem with us not having enough of a hand in the government's work is that some laws are passed that are a fucking disaster for us. (I'll take for example the infamous HADOPI which is some SOPA/ACTA ripoff and who's still existing to this day)

This kind of events bring peoples to be disinterested in politic and it paves the way for some extreme party.

I think freedom is not linked to democracy however. I think a dictatorship played right can be as free as a democracy, the main problem being that the kind of people who take full powers are often with exclusively personnal ambition.

One of my teacher once told me: A man who want to be in power is no normal man.

Kind of true, for all the liberty we got, compared to us the president is a prisonner.
No matter what you do as a figure of authorities, you are being watched closely by the entire world, it's not a cage in a physical sense, but it's still restricting. (reminder that my actual president broke up with his lady because he got caught secretly meeting with an actress, presumably for a love affair)
you need a strong spirit to bear such situation.

Most dictators tend to manipulate the media due to the reasons I mentionned.


Ah shit, I completely derailed in my rant did I?

Simply put, it's the logical outcome: No one is going to vote to actively allow someone to take away their own rights. The problem is that that only works with Direct democracy, really. Representative democracy has this funny way of letting the people you elect put their own interests ahead of what they were actually elected to represent. It's why here in Amurica corporations can fund a candidate, and when that guy later goes on to vote to give them a tax break, it's not corruption, because the same people that funded his campaign also told him to make that the law..... it's kind of circular like that. It slowly becomes less about the voters and more about sustaining the system and your own power, almost worse than a monarchy or dicatorship, because you have to be somewhat sneaky about it.

Putting a label on something doesn't automatically make you free. Only when governments of the world are abolished we'll truly understand the meaning of free! Democracy is pretty fair to its citizens though, but it does has its faults as any kind of system would. I'm not a terrorist, I'm just saying. I have nothing against anyone.

this moment when I see your pic and I have a fetish for neko girls, where is it from? :3

Because freedom is synonymous to control.

Not giving a choice to the public (voting, for example) reduces their sense of control.

Less control = Less freedom

No, power would just go to smaller groups, a lot of them likely more oppressive than what we have, though naturally some would be better, and of course if you wind up on top of one of those smaller groups you get a lot of freedom, but not as much as you'd like as you have to vie against other similar groups and watch your and your peoples backs.

Anarchy is a nice ideal (really, in a lot of ways it is) but people will just organize themselves into another power-structure basically immedietly anyway, so anarchy just equates to a very short term state while everyone is reorganizing.