• dx1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nor does it magically make their ideas into law. For a democracy to do this it has to actually accept the totalitarian ideas. Widespread ignorance is therefore a precondition for the “paradox” to hold true.

    Ironically, ignoring that is a classic appeal to totalitarian principles - claiming that, without totalitarian controls on some aspect of human behavior, people must necessary produce some bad outcome, therefore, banning bad behavior is necessary. It ignores really the entire moral evolution and capability for reasoning of individuals in favor of a simplistic mechanical explanation of people. The simplistic language of “tolerance” in the paradox obfuscates key details - what we advocate with “free speech” is that the government may not criminally punish forms of speech, not that we must respect every idea equally on conceptual grounds, or especially not put every idea, flawed or not, into practice, or law. The entire idea behind a free democracy is that we diligently compare and evaluate concepts and put only the best ideas into practice.

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The entire idea behind a free democracy is that we diligently compare and evaluate concepts and put only the best ideas into practice.

      No, the idea of Democracy is surprisingly not to put the best idea into practice, but instead to create a societal framework that the majority of members can live under. It’s not about creating good results but the legitimization of the government.

      I highly suggest you look into the philosophical background of the democratic movement and liberalism before you continue to repeat the fruits of American Slavers arguing that “states rights”.

      • dx1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, the idea of Democracy is surprisingly not to put the best idea into practice, but instead to create a societal framework that the majority of members can live under. It’s not about creating good results but the legitimization of the government.

        That IS the best idea, the societal framework that gives the best outcome for the population. Come on, with this reply, seriously.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, Democracy brings about not the best idea, but the most commonly accepted one, and there is often stark difference. There is a reason the democratic philosophers never actually mentioned “the ability for democracy to find the best idea” and many instead outright warned of the potential for bad ideas, going all the way back to Plato’s accounting of Socrates, in the works of enlightenment and revolutionary philosophers such as John Lock, or the governmental structure of the United States its self.

          The governmental philosophy that does promise the best results on the other hand is a technocracy.

          But do, please keep going about the platitude you heard.

          • dx1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That is the formula for the best outcome in a democracy. Nobody is talking about how Greek philosophers described it. Pipe down.

            This is one of those really nasty reddit patterns I was enjoying not encountering here. You leave a thoughtful/well-reasoned message one morning, the next day you wake up and some guy is still hounding you about his bad-faith reading of your comment. I write “the entire idea behind a free democracy”, in context clearly I’m talking about how you actually make a society work best with a democratic model, and he starts replying with a “correction” about early Greek philosophers’ takes on democracy, like this is in any way what I was talking about.

            • orrk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              but your message is not as thought out and well reasoned as you think it is. You are literally just repeating stuff you have heard somewhere, without knowing the context or the entire surrounding school of thought, and then of course you double down on your dunning Kruger interpretation of what a democracy does.

              And I wouldn’t call John Lock or Alexander Hamilton a “Greek philosopher”, but you do need to understand that their idea of democracy stems from the Renaissance and Enlightenment era’s rediscovery of Greco-Roman philosophy, so if you are referring to democracy as a governmental structure, you are talking about these Greek philosophers.

              • dx1@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I am not “just repeating stuff I have heard somewhere”, I have reasoned out myself the basic truth that a society where the will of the public dictates its structure benefits immensely from the population being educated. Regardless of what Socrates or Plato said, regardless of what the American “founding fathers” said. Done with this conversation, blocking.