Law and Order, Democracy, Civil Liberties and the Prevention of Civil War

[jordan179]

Introduction

I was chatting with cutelildrow, and she mentioned that Sweden has apparently decided to simultaneously continue its curbs on freedom of political speech while opening up its government posts, including decision-making offices, to non-citizens. And I commented to her that it seemed as if Sweden were trying to assist a foreign subversion

Comments

[selfishgene]

A critical point is that if a majority faction is unarmed but a minority faction is well armed then the minority can win. Balance of firepower is more important than balance of headcount.

[jordan179]

A critical point is that if a majority faction is unarmed but a minority faction is well armed then the minority can win. Balance of firepower is more important than balance of headcount.

Indeed, and an organized or fierce minority can keep control of a disorganized or timid majority. One way to look at it is that weapons, organization and attitude are "force multipliers," to be applied to the raw numbers to generate comparisons.

OTOH, they are not reliable long-term force multipliers, because it is difficult to oppress a majority and keep them unarmed and disorganized, and a timid population may grow fiercer over time. That's what I mean when I term such a situation "unstable."

[jordan179]

This played some role in the causation and duration of the American Civil War of 1861-65. The Southerners were clearly outnumbered and (even more so) outfinanced, but they had more military experience, more personal weapons (at least at the start of the war) and considered themselves more manly.

Another factor was that Lincoln won by a plurality in a four-way election, and didn't have anything close to a majority of the votes. The South could, with some justice (if we ignore the very obvious injustice of 3/5 of their own electoral votes coming from people not allowed to actually vote) claim that Lincoln didn't really have even the North behind him. And they could hope that his coalition would collapse (as it nearly did collapse, in 1863-1864) owing to this lack of majority support.

Anything which makes a minority think that they are stronger than they really are tends to increase the risk of civil war.

[selfishgene]

You may find this analysis interesting.
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2010/05/preventing-civil-war.html

Also

[ilion7]

Also, I am convinced that the American system, as opposed to a Parliamentary system, is a major source of strength, stability, and agility (when needed) of our polity.

One of the reasons direct election of US Senators is such a bad idea is that it severely compromises the American system of federalism, moving it toward the instabilities of unitary parliamentarianism.

Pisses me off

[ilion7]

"One of the reasons direct election of US Senators is such a bad idea is that it severely compromises the American system of federalism, moving it toward the instabilities of unitary parliamentarianism."

One of the things which pisses me off about the permanent State Department class in the US is that whenever we overthrow a regime and create a new system of governmant in another country, those fools always ensure that we set up a parliament rather than a congress.

Re: Pisses me off

[jordan179]

The State Department is basically run by liberals, who view the checks and balances of the American system as an unfortunate remnant of outdated political philosophies. For all their education, they really don't understand history.

Re: Pisses me off

[ilion7]

exactly

I would say

[ilion7]

"... Consequently, in a democracy, even fanaticism is induced to take a moderate course."

Democracy itself is as best a Very Dangerous Thing (and frequently a Very Bad Thing). Democracy fosters factionalism and win-at-all-costs fanaticism, which must eventually result in real-life battles between the factions.

I would say that it is Constitutionalism which tames Democracy and defangs the fanaticism spawned by it. It would say that it is Republicanism (including an intentional decentralization of power), not Democracy, which secures our God-given rights and liberties from being trampled by whichever faction temporarily gains control of the famous "levers of power."

But, constitutionalism works, and indeed exists, only so long as the vast majority of the electorate are dedicated to living within the bounds set by the Constitution of their polity.

Re: I would say

[jordan179]

I would say that it is Constitutionalism which tames Democracy and defangs the fanaticism spawned by it. It would say that it is Republicanism (including an intentional decentralization of power), not Democracy, which secures our God-given rights and liberties from being trampled by whichever faction temporarily gains control of the famous "levers of power."

Yes, I agree with you. It forces realistic candidates to limit their political ambitions to reform rather than revolution, and hence nips revolutions in the bud. Which is essential, because revolutions are fun to read about but hell to live through, and very draining of the long-term energies of any polity. Even when they produce a temporary increase in power (as happened to France in 1789-1815) the inevitable sequel is a loss of long-term power (compare the French diplomatic position c. 1835 with its position c. 1785). And they kill a lot of human beings.

Re: I would say

[ilion7]

True, all points.

It seems French policy for the past century or more is geared toward "getting back" at the US for France's loss of stature following their revolution.

[americanstd]

Not commenting on this one... but wanted to wish Jordan and all of the sycophants a Happy Hanukkah, May your lights burn as brightly throughout the year.

Chanukah Sameach!