I've given up on politics and labels. I now judge a country according to my own freedom metrics as informed by the scamdemic. So I agree with you -- democracy and freedom are, at best, loosely related. Pre-2020, I never would have said that Nicaragua is more free than Canada but it was one of the few countries that did not have lockdowns, mask mandates or vaxx mandates. For at least a few years, the government of Nicaragua admitted the country was too poor to lock down and that they were leaving it to individuals to manage their own risk and act accordingly. Will Nicaragua always look more free than Canada? Who can say.
I look at countries like Mexico, where I have residency, and Nicaragua where I'm considering getting residency, and I see cash societies with a large minority of unbanked citizens. If you think freedom is the freedom to spend your money as you wish and with a modicum of privacy (cash), then these countries are more free than Canada is or will be.
I never appreciated inefficient governments until the scamdemic. We think of democracies as being efficient and well run, and that may be true, but there are certain things you don't want your government to be too good at! Tracking your every financial move and your movements would be two examples.
Countries we don't think of as strong democracies may actually offer more individual freedom. Nothing is as I thought it was and so I have had to adapt to the new abnormal, and that includes re-visiting that which we thought was obvious -- like democracy = freedom.
A friend of mine once said that living in Canada was like being in the first boats that hit Normandy Beach in WWII...you would be the first to get mowed down. It would be better to be in a country with a weaker infrastructure, weaker economy, etc because they would not move into the New World Order as quickly...Canada is first in line, even before the US.
Spot on! It may come to those countries eventually, but maybe I can squeeze out a few more good years in a country with better weather and fresh fruit and veg.
I know your wife is not on the same page, but given you're an American could you at least convince her to go to Florida or some other sane state?
"[Democracy] has problems as Rand so eloquently pointed out." Yes. One for its biggest, and certainly the fatal one, is the bell curve in the age of social media.
Today, somewhere, I saw the term "Qualified Democracy". Sounds nice, but — the bell curve again — fat chance.
In constitutional monarchies there is a chance that you get an idiot as a ruler. In modern democracies, it is certainty.
Do you mean the majority who vote are idiots? Unfortunately I do have to agree...and yes, that is passing judgement, but I think it is time we do judge people based on morals, education, common sense, and critical thinking. I don't hate people who are idiots, but I certainly do not want them ruling my life.
Is "Qualified Democracy" a democracy made up of qualified voters as well as candidates? As we know, Rand didn't want the common people voting at all. She felt the government should be made up of learned, intelligent, men. Or ruled entirely by the Constitution (and I suppose a supreme court whose mandate was to follow the Constitution). I can't say I would not support that "idea"...but I doubt if it would be any less corrupt than idiots voting...look at the Soviet system or any communist/fascist system that holds "elections"...the leaders there are chosen by a small group of "learned men"...ha ha ha
"Do you mean the majority who vote are idiots?" Yes. Until recently it was fairly manageable though. When everything was more or less local, you had, say, 10 elders managing/persuading 1000 village idiots. That's doable. It would seem that 10,000 elders should be able to manage 1,000,000 idiots. Far from it. First, the problem is not rational (as in the ratio of two numbers) but absolute. Facing 1000 morons is very different from facing a million. 10,000 elders is not 1000x more effective than 10 but, more likely, less effective ... and eventually replaced. The moment social media fused the bell curve hump, democracy had become a losing proposition. If the last four years taught me anything at all, it was just this.
The guy who wrote about "Qualified Democracy" was suggesting some basic test; for example, "How many states are in the US? or "What is the capital of the US." You don't know ... you are not voting. I'd go much further than that.
Per the Soviet system: Yes, the election was a choice of one. In our system, it is a choice of many who are all identical. Is there a meaningful difference? I think that what is being constructed now is some form of techno-feudalism or downright slavery.
Thank you so much!! Very strange there has been practically no activity regarding this piece, very few comments, likes, and even reads...and this one went out to my entire subscriber base! Maybe I SHOULD stay away from politics!!
Oh no, please continue writing what matters to you. I think that many are cloaking on the self-righteous use of "Democracy" and that may have turned people away from reading your piece. It has become painful on so many levels and brings up the nauseating feeling of bedrail. Your succinct finale to your piece is perfect. We are truly in the midst of fighting for freedom -while living in a dangerous democratic circus. Your piece clarified this beautifully.
You are so right. Case in point, Canada is not a democracy when governed by a minority vote. Like Candy said, it is just mob rule. It’s the rule of those with the deepest pockets and the most to gain by manipulating (ie contributing and lobbying) the so-called “elected by the people”.
That is certainly not freedom.
Even when they try to do a no-confidence to supposedly give voice to the actual majority of the population, it is not by vote OF the population - it is decided by those put in their position by the subject of the vote. Who does that make sense to?
75% of Canadians voted against Trudeau and yet here he is. No, democracy is not the same as freedom.
I must plead ignorance of the Canadian political system. It is very different from the US system, and I grew up on that (and, when I was young, they actually taught civics in High School.)
All this does seem whacked, and of course, it is whacked in the US as well.
“Democracy” was born out of mob rule and tyranny. It’s just an alternate form of oppression. You made a good point about what people think democracy is as opposed to what it actually is. Any form of government eventually devolves into the same thing-rule by the people who are most frustrated by the chaos. It’s reality and history.
Good article. I’m also on that fence about Rand. But I agree with many on some things, even though I disagree with them on most. Seems logical to follow your own opinions after consulting others’
I have always been on the fence with Rand. I loved "Fountainhead" when I first read it at about 22 years old. Since I have cooled a bit on its arrogant individualism. And of course, Rand's view of capitalism has proven to be not as Utopian as she envisioned. Still, she has always had the right idea about the sanctity of the individual as creator, and volunteerism. Even though she was against government regulation, she still preferred an organized, hierarchical government...
Gosh, I now have a better understanding of what freedom means and what democracy is. More to think about.
I've given up on politics and labels. I now judge a country according to my own freedom metrics as informed by the scamdemic. So I agree with you -- democracy and freedom are, at best, loosely related. Pre-2020, I never would have said that Nicaragua is more free than Canada but it was one of the few countries that did not have lockdowns, mask mandates or vaxx mandates. For at least a few years, the government of Nicaragua admitted the country was too poor to lock down and that they were leaving it to individuals to manage their own risk and act accordingly. Will Nicaragua always look more free than Canada? Who can say.
I look at countries like Mexico, where I have residency, and Nicaragua where I'm considering getting residency, and I see cash societies with a large minority of unbanked citizens. If you think freedom is the freedom to spend your money as you wish and with a modicum of privacy (cash), then these countries are more free than Canada is or will be.
I never appreciated inefficient governments until the scamdemic. We think of democracies as being efficient and well run, and that may be true, but there are certain things you don't want your government to be too good at! Tracking your every financial move and your movements would be two examples.
Countries we don't think of as strong democracies may actually offer more individual freedom. Nothing is as I thought it was and so I have had to adapt to the new abnormal, and that includes re-visiting that which we thought was obvious -- like democracy = freedom.
So interesting…I am learning so much…
A friend of mine once said that living in Canada was like being in the first boats that hit Normandy Beach in WWII...you would be the first to get mowed down. It would be better to be in a country with a weaker infrastructure, weaker economy, etc because they would not move into the New World Order as quickly...Canada is first in line, even before the US.
Spot on! It may come to those countries eventually, but maybe I can squeeze out a few more good years in a country with better weather and fresh fruit and veg.
I know your wife is not on the same page, but given you're an American could you at least convince her to go to Florida or some other sane state?
"[Democracy] has problems as Rand so eloquently pointed out." Yes. One for its biggest, and certainly the fatal one, is the bell curve in the age of social media.
Today, somewhere, I saw the term "Qualified Democracy". Sounds nice, but — the bell curve again — fat chance.
In constitutional monarchies there is a chance that you get an idiot as a ruler. In modern democracies, it is certainty.
Do you mean the majority who vote are idiots? Unfortunately I do have to agree...and yes, that is passing judgement, but I think it is time we do judge people based on morals, education, common sense, and critical thinking. I don't hate people who are idiots, but I certainly do not want them ruling my life.
Is "Qualified Democracy" a democracy made up of qualified voters as well as candidates? As we know, Rand didn't want the common people voting at all. She felt the government should be made up of learned, intelligent, men. Or ruled entirely by the Constitution (and I suppose a supreme court whose mandate was to follow the Constitution). I can't say I would not support that "idea"...but I doubt if it would be any less corrupt than idiots voting...look at the Soviet system or any communist/fascist system that holds "elections"...the leaders there are chosen by a small group of "learned men"...ha ha ha
"Do you mean the majority who vote are idiots?" Yes. Until recently it was fairly manageable though. When everything was more or less local, you had, say, 10 elders managing/persuading 1000 village idiots. That's doable. It would seem that 10,000 elders should be able to manage 1,000,000 idiots. Far from it. First, the problem is not rational (as in the ratio of two numbers) but absolute. Facing 1000 morons is very different from facing a million. 10,000 elders is not 1000x more effective than 10 but, more likely, less effective ... and eventually replaced. The moment social media fused the bell curve hump, democracy had become a losing proposition. If the last four years taught me anything at all, it was just this.
The guy who wrote about "Qualified Democracy" was suggesting some basic test; for example, "How many states are in the US? or "What is the capital of the US." You don't know ... you are not voting. I'd go much further than that.
Per the Soviet system: Yes, the election was a choice of one. In our system, it is a choice of many who are all identical. Is there a meaningful difference? I think that what is being constructed now is some form of techno-feudalism or downright slavery.
What a wonderful and insightful piece …Still processing all the nuances !
Thank you so much!! Very strange there has been practically no activity regarding this piece, very few comments, likes, and even reads...and this one went out to my entire subscriber base! Maybe I SHOULD stay away from politics!!
Oh no, please continue writing what matters to you. I think that many are cloaking on the self-righteous use of "Democracy" and that may have turned people away from reading your piece. It has become painful on so many levels and brings up the nauseating feeling of bedrail. Your succinct finale to your piece is perfect. We are truly in the midst of fighting for freedom -while living in a dangerous democratic circus. Your piece clarified this beautifully.
You are so right. Case in point, Canada is not a democracy when governed by a minority vote. Like Candy said, it is just mob rule. It’s the rule of those with the deepest pockets and the most to gain by manipulating (ie contributing and lobbying) the so-called “elected by the people”.
That is certainly not freedom.
Even when they try to do a no-confidence to supposedly give voice to the actual majority of the population, it is not by vote OF the population - it is decided by those put in their position by the subject of the vote. Who does that make sense to?
75% of Canadians voted against Trudeau and yet here he is. No, democracy is not the same as freedom.
I must plead ignorance of the Canadian political system. It is very different from the US system, and I grew up on that (and, when I was young, they actually taught civics in High School.)
All this does seem whacked, and of course, it is whacked in the US as well.
“Democracy” was born out of mob rule and tyranny. It’s just an alternate form of oppression. You made a good point about what people think democracy is as opposed to what it actually is. Any form of government eventually devolves into the same thing-rule by the people who are most frustrated by the chaos. It’s reality and history.
Good article. I’m also on that fence about Rand. But I agree with many on some things, even though I disagree with them on most. Seems logical to follow your own opinions after consulting others’
I have always been on the fence with Rand. I loved "Fountainhead" when I first read it at about 22 years old. Since I have cooled a bit on its arrogant individualism. And of course, Rand's view of capitalism has proven to be not as Utopian as she envisioned. Still, she has always had the right idea about the sanctity of the individual as creator, and volunteerism. Even though she was against government regulation, she still preferred an organized, hierarchical government...