Liberty Versus Democracy

[Anonymous]

This older article is still bang on. Democracy and liberty are not the same thing. Only one of them safeguards our economic freedom and the rule of law and it is NOY universal suffrage. Iran has democracy, but Hong Kong does not. Where would one prefer to live?

Would you prefer to live in a country that has:



(1) The rule of law with an honest civil service, strong protection of private property and minority rights, free trade, free markets, very low taxes, and full freedom of the speech, press and religion, but not a democracy?



(2) Democracy and a corrupt court and civil service, many restrictions on economic freedom, including very high taxes, with limited rights for minority religions, peoples and speech?



The first example describes Hong Kong under the British, which had full civil liberties, little corruption and the world's freest economy. The Chinese took over Hong Kong in 1997 and have allowed it to continue as the freest economy in the world. As a result of the British being benevolent dictators and the Chinese largely continuing economic noninterference, with a number of restrictions on freedom of speech and the press, Hong Kong has achieved a per capita income close to that of the United States and higher than almost all democracies.



Many mistakenly believe democracy means liberty, but a quick review of world democracies show that is not true. Almost all democracies restrict economic liberties more than necessary. Many have corrupt court and civil service systems, inhibit women's rights, constrain press freedom and do not protect minority rights and views. Iran, though a very restrictive theocracy, calls itself a democracy and holds elections.



The American Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, so they set up a Republic to protect individual liberties from the passions of the majority at the moment. They worried about the excesses of democracy.



James Madison, the primary Framer of the U.S. Constitution, noted: "Democracies have been spectacles of turbulence and conflict." His views were shared by the other Founders. That is why the U.S. Constitution was designed to restrict a democratic majority from limiting freedom of speech, press, religion and so forth. It is a document of liberty, not of democracy.



The Bush administration has placed itself in a difficult position by advocating democracy rather than liberty as its global mission. The democratic elections in Iraq and Palestine may well result in subjugation of women, containment of basic freedoms of speech and the press, and support for terrorist activities.



We, the victors in Iraq, had a perfect right — in fact, a responsibility — to insist any new constitution protect individual liberties, including full rights for women, property rights and the right to follow one's own religious beliefs and not be forced to wear the majority's religious garb.



Remember, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and his fellow American officials virtually dictated the constitution of Japan after World War II, which abolished the emperor's role as a deity. That constitution served the Japanese well.



The Allies would have not accepted a German constitution that restricted minority rights, for good reason. Standards of tolerance and civil liberties should not have been lowered for majority Muslim nations. By doing so, we may end with hollow victories. Religious Muslims can do perfectly well under regimes that protect the liberties of all citizens, as demonstrated by successful Muslim communities in the U.S. and elsewhere.



It is argued you cannot have sustained periods of liberty without democracy, and that argument does have merit. Those economic/political units today that have liberty without democracy are almost all colonies or territories of large democracies (the notable exception is Hong Kong, which remains largely free because of the treaty).



England enjoyed several centuries of substantial liberty without being a real democracy. However, such cases were rare: Even the most liberal (in the original sense) monarchies and oligarchies most often ended up restricting liberties.



The Bush administration needs to revise its rhetoric and actions to put advancement of human liberty, including economic freedom, in the forefront of its global agenda. This does mean support for democratic governments and institutions within countries that help preserve liberty. Democracy should not be seen as the end goal in itself, but only as a mechanism, if properly constructed, to help create, preserve and enhance liberty.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/feb/4/20060204-103048-1254r/?page=all">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... /?page=all">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/feb/4/20060204-103048-1254r/?page=all

[Obvious Li]

we used to live in a #1....i grew up in a #1.....we now have progressed to a #2 and will probably continue progressing to a #3..whatever that may be.....





" Democracy and a corrupt court and civil service, many restrictions on economic freedom, including very high taxes, with limited rights for religions, peoples and speech? "..pretty much sums up modern canada

[Anonymous]

we used to live in a #1....i grew up in a #1.....we now have progressed to a #2 and will probably continue progressing to a #3..whatever that may be.....





" Democracy and a corrupt court and civil service, many restrictions on economic freedom, including very high taxes, with limited rights for religions, peoples and speech? "..pretty much sums up modern canada

These are the inevitable outcome of universal suffrage. It's a bad idea that leads to pandering with other people's money not liberty and economic freedom.

[Romero]

Hilarious! Iran is a democracy because it says so and holds sham elections? Hey, North Korea is a democracy too! It uses the word "democratic", and holds "free elections" where every citizen votes for Dear Leader or gets shipped off to a labour camp. Democracy!



Anyone with a few brain cells knows Iran is nothing like a democracy. If anyone's confused about what a real democracy is, they can just look at a list of the greatest countries in the world. All real democracies.

" Democracy and a corrupt court and civil service, many restrictions on economic freedom, including very high taxes, with limited rights for religions, peoples and speech? "..pretty much sums up modern canada

So untrue! Canada is always top ranked regarding those issues.



Okay, democracy haters - which countries should Canada be more like?

[Obvious Li]

Hilarious! Iran is a democracy because it says so and holds sham elections? Hey, North Korea is a democracy too! It uses the word "democratic", and holds "free elections" where every citizen votes for Dear Leader or gets shipped off to a labour camp. Democracy!



Anyone with a few brain cells knows Iran is nothing like a democracy. If anyone's confused about what a real democracy is, they can just look at a list of the greatest countries in the world. All real democracies.

" Democracy and a corrupt court and civil service, many restrictions on economic freedom, including very high taxes, with limited rights for religions, peoples and speech? "..pretty much sums up modern canada

So untrue! Canada is always top ranked regarding those issues.



Okay, democracy haters - which countries should Canada be more like?

[/b]





Using the word democracy means nothing......Canada should be like Canada was prior to the arrival of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau...that would be sufficient.....other than that Singapore is a good model.....China/HK itself is not bad.......usually wherever you have a one party state you have stability, which allows for common sense to enter the political arena....the western democratic model is sick and broken......democracies run by minority special interest groups backed by a corrupt, overly activist, politically driven court will eventually lead to anarchy and dictatorial rule....we are half way there.... ac_beating

[Anonymous]

Hilarious! Iran is a democracy because it says so and holds sham elections?

It is considered democracy, but a seriously flawed one.

From wiki "The President is elected by universal suffrage for a term of four years and can only be re-elected for one term"

However, who cares if Iran holds elections or not. They have very little real liberty and that is the true measure of freedom, not universal suffrage.

Anyone with a few brain cells knows Iran is nothing like a democracy. If anyone's confused about what a real democracy is, they can just look at a list of the greatest countries in the world. All real democracies.

Canada is always top ranked regarding those issues.



Okay, democracy haters - which countries should Canada be more like?

Most of these rankings on everything from "happiness" to democracy have such a blatant Western bias. The Index of Economic Freedom ranks Hong Kong and Singapore number one and two even though neither of them are actual democracies. All Western countries should be more like them and to Canada's credit we have made improvements in our economic freedom. It's hard to do that though when you have to take some of my economic freedom to pander to people because of universal suffrage.

https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/index-ranking-2014.jpg?w=1028&h=1180">