[Snagprophet]

Human rights are not objectively a good thing. They are subjective.

[f1mad]

No.

Civil rights, yes.

[mmmpie]

Both self-determination and political participation are human rights. The various flavours of liberal democracy are ways of fulfilling those rights, but that doesn't make democracy a right in and of itself.

[wilson_smith]

(Original post by Beneb)
The 'right' to democracy entails the right to exercise coercive authority over others, which conflicts with the (widely regarded) more fundamental rights of each person to his life and property. Tyranny remains tyranny even if supported by a majority of persons.

The fact that two rights can conflict does not render one (of your unsubstantiated choosing) null. As simple as it is; most sensible political philosophies grant an inalienable set of basic civil rights which can't, irrespective of the conditions, be abrogated.

Tyranny can manifest itself owing to lacking democracy you know.

[Raiden10]

07977 856923

Contact me on this number when you find something more useful for philosophy to do.

[snozzle]

(Original post by dan_stanting)
The only human rights IMO should be things basic to human survival and wellbeing.

That would make food and sex a human right lol.

Libertarians normally consider human rights in a negative sense, so it is the right to seek to do, or seek to have certain things free from state coercion.

I suppose this implies a naturalistic theory of rights.

Lots of people confuse human rights with legal rights, for example the right to vote is really a legal right. In a society with formal law (rule of law) this would apply to all.

[snozzle]

(Original post by wilson_smith)
Tyranny can manifest itself owing to lacking democracy you know.

Democracy can lead to tyranny too such as the Reign of Terror after the 1789 French revolution.

Interestingly many early liberals were monarchists.

[Dont Tread On Me]

No it's not. I also find the idea that everyone is entitled to vote quite ridiculous, talk to a random person on the street about politics and the chances are, they will know next to nothing. Test's need to be put in place to determine if someone know enough about the political landscape to vote.

[LETSJaM]

No for aforementioned reasons.

<3 x

[CUFCDan]

(Original post by Dont Tread On Me)
No it's not. I also find the idea that everyone is entitled to vote quite ridiculous, talk to a random person on the street about politics and the chances are, they will know next to nothing. Test's need to be put in place to determine if someone know enough about the political landscape to vote.

Seems a complete disregard for anything else democracy entails. Democracy isn't about voting merely on political issues.

If you don't have a vote, your views don't get attention by rulers. This was arguably one issue with not letting the working poor have a vote in England.

It is a paradox that you're right that 100 fools shouldn't outvote 1 genius, but in the process of taking away their votes you take away their rights, and the latter should not happen.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by snozzle)
Democracy can lead to tyranny too such as the Reign of Terror after the 1789 French revolution.

Interestingly many early liberals were monarchists.

I've heard this said but I still don't understand how the Terror was a result of democracy.

[CUFCDan]

(Original post by anarchism101)
I've heard this said but I still don't understand how the Terror was a result of democracy.

Me either. It was the result of radicalism responding to a counter-revolution, something that (usually) always happens in a revolution (unless the counter-revolution wins, in which case the Terror occurs on the opposite side).

Also I'm not sure if early liberals were monarchists... I have a feeling too that that assumption is incorrect.

[snozzle]

(Original post by anarchism101)
I've heard this said but I still don't understand how the Terror was a result of democracy.

The french revolution unleashed the power of popular opinion and the mob. Before the revolution the masses are serfs on feudal estates and their political opinions are irrelevant.

Anyway whilst France was under the dictatorial powers of the Committee for Public Safety during the Terror, the point is any democracy can become mob rule and 'tyranny of the majority' potentially.

[snozzle]

(Original post by CUFCDan)
Also I'm not sure if early liberals were monarchists... I have a feeling too that that assumption is incorrect.

Hobbes.

[Perseveranze]

"Democracy is a system where people are counted not weighed." - Allama Iqbal

[anarchism101]

(Original post by snozzle)
The french revolution unleashed the power of popular opinion and the mob. Before the revolution the masses are serfs on feudal estates and their political opinions are irrelevant.

Anyway whilst France was under the dictatorial powers of the Committee for Public Safety during the Terror, the point is any democracy can become mob rule and 'tyranny of the majority' potentially.

During the most extreme phase of the Terror (basically the 1794 bit), the Committee for Public Safety was executing all the sans-culottes representatives - first the Enrages, then the Hebertistes, then the Cordeliers, and eventually the Jacobins themselves.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by anarchism101)
If you mean liberal representative 'democracy', then no, it's ****. If you mean direct participatory democracy, then it ought to be.

sigh.