AC question

[DrunkHamster]

[ QUOTE ]

Secondly, if either judicial or legislative power is transferred to the executive branch (cabinet etc) then you are no longer a modern democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is nice and intuitively plausible, but the point is that you're essentially playing fast and loose with the semantics of 'democracy'. For example, I think it is generally accepted that whatever a democracy is, the UK is one of them [if you disagree based on your criteria, I think you can be legitimately accused of fallaciously defining the problem out of existence]

Now, I'm not sure how much you know about our political system, but the executive branch (i.e Cabinet and the PM) is in practically completely control of the legislative branch (i.e. Parliament). So we fail one of your necessary conditions already.

This is all getting off the point anyway, which is that the Nazi analogy used in the first place (a few pages back) is a perfectly legitimate analogy to use, because even if you argue about to what extent Germany was a democracy, it is hard to argue that Hitler didn't at least have a democratic mandate (or at least as much of a democratic mandate as Labour do currently), and so I'd still be interested in your response to bkholdem's original point.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
You have several things that can go lost and then a society seizes to be a modern democracy:

1. The removal of the judicial branch. (laws/courts)
2. The removal of the legislative branch. (parliament of some form)
3. The removal of the right to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act of 1933 did pretty much this, and effectively established a totalitarian dictatorship less than two months after Hitler was appointed chancellor.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Secondly, if either judicial or legislative power is transferred to the executive branch (cabinet etc) then you are no longer a modern democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is nice and intuitively plausible, but the point is that you're essentially playing fast and loose with the semantics of 'democracy'. For example, I think it is generally accepted that whatever a democracy is, the UK is one of them [if you disagree based on your criteria, I think you can be legitimately accused of fallaciously defining the problem out of existence]

Now, I'm not sure how much you know about our political system, but the executive branch (i.e Cabinet and the PM) is in practically completely control of the legislative branch (i.e. Parliament). So we fail one of your necessary conditions already.

This is all getting off the point anyway, which is that the Nazi analogy used in the first place (a few pages back) is a perfectly legitimate analogy to use, because even if you argue about to what extent Germany was a democracy, it is hard to argue that Hitler didn't at least have a democratic mandate (or at least as much of a democratic mandate as Labour do currently), and so I'd still be interested in your response to bkholdem's original point.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the example is flawed because Germany became a tyranny in 1933, any politics enacted thereafter were not democratic. And making a point that it was a democracy in the first place is also flawed because it wasn't, it was a failed attempt to institutionalize democratic principle. Hitler's appointment to chancellor was not a democratic appointment.

[DrunkHamster]

OK, arguing about how democratic the Nazi regime was is getting kinda boring.

The essential point can be made without any historical controversies:

Imagine if, say, the UK (which I think we can agree is democratic to any required extent) tomorrow elected a government based on a manifesto dedicated to the extermination of all the Jews in the country. In your opinion, would that government be acting legitimately in carrying out its democratically mandated policy? If yes, then congratulations, you're crazy; If no, then why not? What are the limitations of democracy, and how exactly are these limitations decided?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, I think it is generally accepted that whatever a democracy is, the UK is one of them


[/ QUOTE ]

It is also generally accepted that pre-Nazi Germany was not a democracy, but in fact a republic. Hence, historians retroactively dubbed it the Weimar Republic.

[ QUOTE ]

Now, I'm not sure how much you know about our political system, but the executive branch (i.e Cabinet and the PM) is in practically completely control of the legislative branch (i.e. Parliament). So we fail one of your necessary conditions already.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't fail any of td's conditions. He didn't require the seperation of powers....he merely said their existence, and to be fair, they do exist.

[ QUOTE ]
the Nazi analogy used in the first place (a few pages back) is a perfectly legitimate analogy to use,


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that pre-Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and that Hitler wasn't democratically elected.

[ QUOTE ]

because even if you argue about to what extent Germany was a democracy, it is hard to argue that Hitler didn't at least have a democratic mandate (or at least as much of a democratic mandate as Labour do currently)


[/ QUOTE ]

What elections gave Hitler a democratic mandate? He was appointed Chancellor by the president in early 1933.

The elections of July 1932 gave the Nazi party majority in the Reichstag, by a 37% vote, and the Reichstag was dissolved in the time between this and Hitler's appointment, in favor of another election in Novemeber 1932, in which the Nazi party took 33% of the votes...and then von Schleicher dissolved the Reichstag again and annointed himself the "Socialist General", effectively a Presidential dictatorship....etc...

Hitler thwarted this takeover by convincing Hindenburg to name him chancellor.

Hence, the Machterschleichung...or "sneaking into power'.

Hardly a "democratic mandate".

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, arguing about how democratic the Nazi regime was is getting kinda boring.


[/ QUOTE ]

Probably because you're on the wrong side of the argument. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Imagine if, say, the UK (which I think we can agree is democratic to any required extent) tomorrow elected a government based on a manifesto dedicated to the extermination of all the Jews in the country.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm...outlandish, but ok...I'll suspend belief for a second....

[ QUOTE ]
In your opinion, would that government be acting legitimately in carrying out its democratically mandated policy?


[/ QUOTE ]

Legitimacy is subjective.

In my opinion, it would not be legitimate, because I find it abhorrable.

In the opinion of the voters that elected them in that country, however, it would obviously be legitimate, as it was their mandate.

[ QUOTE ]

If yes, then congratulations, you're crazy;


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I would agree the majority of voters would be crazy, that's why I said it was an outlandish premise.

[ QUOTE ]

If no, then why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because I think the extermination of all Jews is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

What are the limitations of democracy, and how exactly are these limitations decided?

[/ QUOTE ]

By vote.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, no. Nothing has changed. Your answer did not address your personal subjective opinion of right or wrong. There is no inconsistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could just borrow one of your tricks, and claim the 'intent' of my answer was to articulate my personal subjective opinion.

After all, how do you know that it isn't my personal subjective opinion?

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for confirming that you're just trolling.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, arguing about how democratic the Nazi regime was is getting kinda boring.

The essential point can be made without any historical controversies:

Imagine if, say, the UK (which I think we can agree is democratic to any required extent) tomorrow elected a government based on a manifesto dedicated to the extermination of all the Jews in the country. In your opinion, would that government be acting legitimately in carrying out its democratically mandated policy? If yes, then congratulations, you're crazy; If no, then why not? What are the limitations of democracy, and how exactly are these limitations decided?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was abit rusty and checked the UK on Wiki, as I understood it does indeed have parliamentarism, even a very rigorous one, so I'm bit confused on your earlier comment on the UK not having a proper legislative branch.

I forego the technicals, ie. if we assume your elected british nazi party did NOT remove the legislative branches, judicial branches or something similar (which in practice I think is close to impossible but w/e, this is hypothetical anyway) they would have to pass probably thousands of acts of law to make their policy legitimate, and the passing those laws would effectively seize the principles of equality and freedom of religion to exist within your borders and you would have gone from being a modern democracy to being a 'tyranny of majority' - which is a fairly complex legal term used when discussing this very issue.

This is also the reason why I always denote democracy with 'modern democracy' or 'liberal democracy', to make sure people know what I support.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for confirming that you're just trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you consider pointing out your obvious inconsistencies and penchant for disingenuos debate to be "trolling".....then color me guilty.

Otherwise, have a nice day. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[DrunkHamster]

[ QUOTE ]


I was abit rusty and checked the UK on Wiki, as I understood it does indeed have parliamentarism, even a very rigorous one, so I'm bit confused on your earlier comment on the UK not having a proper legislative branch.

[/ QUOTE ]

The executive is made up of the largest party in the legislature, and party discipline is extremely strong. I think the party leadership have only been defeated over a piece of legislation 3 times in the last century, which means any claims of separation of powers are pretty much ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]

I forego the technicals, ie. if we assume your elected british nazi party did NOT remove the legislative branches, judicial branches or something similar (which in practice I think is close to impossible but w/e, this is hypothetical anyway) they would have to pass probably thousands of acts of law to make their policy legitimate, and the passing those laws would effectively seize the principles of equality and freedom of religion to exist within your borders and you would have gone from being a modern democracy to being a 'tyranny of majority' - which is a fairly complex legal term used when discussing this very issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK 'tyranny of the majority' is not a legal term at all. But this post illustrates precisely my point - you would argue that this hypothetical regime would be a tyranny of the majority because it violates certain rights, while the ACers would argue that any regime would be a tyranny of the majority because it violates certain rights. So we really need an account of why you believe in some rights and not others. This is what the question really boils down to.