this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
55 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

989 readers
2 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Why capitalists are coming out against democracy - "Does classical liberalism imply democracy?"

https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Reprint-EGP-Classical-Liberalism-Democracy.pdf

"There is a fault line running through ... liberalism as to whether or not democratic self- governance is a necessary part of a liberal social order. The democratic and non-democratic strains of classical liberalism are both present today. Many ... libertarians ... represent the non-democratic strain in their promotion of non-democratic sovereign city-states."

@sneerclub

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

coherent liberalism must also oppose capitalism, and capitalism is inherently non-democratic

Yup, and I hate that "liberal" for most people means something completely different. I self-identify as a liberal, in the sense that, for example, a rentier class of landlords existing or that any human's existence being completely dependent on their job and income is inherently counter to liberal ideals.

I don't know when someone decided we'll mean something anti-liberal by the word "liberal" but they can go fuck themselves.

I don't think democracy is inherently liberal or not, and I don't think it really matters? This is a question of outcomes. No other political system has a history of consistently producing relatively free states (as in freedom for the people within the state). All other systems, be it oligarchies or dictatorships, even if they result in a short period of stability and freedom, almost universally deteriorate into authoritarian hellscapes over time. If we can come up with a system that is better at preventing oppressive regimes then we should rally behind it, but currently only democracy has a positive track record there.

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 5 points 3 months ago

(at a guess) that reversal in terms is probably thanks to the USA, where “Conservative” also doesn’t mean conservative, and “libertarian” has little to do with liberty

[–] grumpybozo@toad.social 4 points 3 months ago

@V0ldek @sneerclub It happened when rich people realized that their individual liberty in a world of mostly poor people would intrinsically be constrained by proper democracy.

A government dedicated to maximizing the broadest possible freedom will, if allowed, redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, to provide the poor more opportunities & limit the dangerous “freedoms” of the ultra-wealthy to impose their own control over others.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 3 points 3 months ago

Did you read the article? It argues that democracy is necessary to meet the requirements of liberal procedural justice, so it isn't just a matter of outcomes

@sneerclub