Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayAugust 9th, 2006 |
 13 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
If just once I could distill a thought into its essence that well, I would die a happy man.
“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it.
Democracy attaches all possible value to each man;
socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number.
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality.
But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty,
socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/alexis_de_tocqueville_quote_dee3
Socialism’s intellectual appeal in the UK has always been aimed at the lower middle class who fondly imagine that come the revolution they will be doing some of the bossing about rather than some of the obeying.
Aren’t they the same thing? If we are all equally free then aren’t we, by the same token, equally restrained?
Patrick,
If we are bound, then we are all bound into the same stance. If we are free then we may move in whatever way we see fit.
When people are free to choose they don’t all make the same choice.
Aren’t they the same thing? If we are all equally free then aren’t we, by the same token, equally restrained?
Restrained = Freedom?
Got yourself a bad case of the doublespeak – but you’re in the right place, Samizdata will fix you right up.
Aren’t they the same thing? If we are all equally free then aren’t we, by the same token, equally restrained?
Well, this is actually true, but it is a tautology. If we are all of us restrained by naught but a cobweb then we are all free to break it. It is a true statement but it says nothing about the level of restraint.
On the surface this statement looks deep, but it is shallow to the core. Zero information content.
Chris, I think you are missing the point. For Tocqueville, restraint was not simply about the minimal requirement that one respects the rights of others, but something far beyond that. So I think the quotation makes sense. It has “information content”.
Democracy does not correctly mimic how we act in small groups, looking for a consensus. Democracy seeks the best decision for the greatest number of people, leaving a large number of people very unhappy (see: moveon.org) when there is likely a consensus that (nearly) everyone can be happy with.
More on this: http://fejta.com/record/807/voting-a-right-not-a-duty.html
(Socialism is not really worth discussing; it jusy sucks)
?
In a free and equal world I (being a moral individual) restrain from killing you because it is an infringement on your freedom to live. In a socialist world I am restrained from killing you because the state needs your productivity. What then happens when you have no more to contribute?
Johnathan – precisely.
Freely chosen self restraint is freedom.
State-imposed and -enforced restraint is tyranny and the exact opposite of freedom.
I am for voluntary self restraint, each individual deciding what, if anything, needs restraining in themselves as they see fit.
Freely chosen self restraint is freedom.
State-imposed and -enforced restraint is tyranny and the exact opposite of freedom.
I am for voluntary self restraint, each individual deciding what, if anything, needs restraining in themselves as they see fit.
The voluntary nature of freely chosen “virtue” in a dissolute culture has much more moral value than socially enforced morality and conventions in a more repressive society, like the conformist 1950s or worse, the Taliban.
That’s why writing a check to your favorite cause or charity is more spiritually satisfying and valuable than handing over higher taxes for government’s good causes that they chose. Blechhh.