liberal democracies won't harm their own citizens?

[ecuworrier]

kindov carrying on from ... 9/11

had one of those chats that left me rather annoyed.....   we were talking generally about 9/11 and then  up came...conspiracy theories.... my companion made what sounded at the time a ludicrous statement that liberal democracies (were the best) cos they wouldn't kill their own citizens... conspiracy theories aside somehow i wasn't convinced by this..

so my idle question is this: how many examples can we think of? where liberal democracies have 'killed their citizens'

come to think of it what actually is a liberal democracy?
 

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndyHB]

so my idle question is this: how many examples can we think of? where liberal democracies have 'killed their citizens'

Bearing in mind the fact that you have put the 'killed their citizens' in inverted commas, I'd like to offer countries such as the UK, the USA, Europe - in fact most 'liberal democracies' - over the past 50 or 60 years as examples of places that have done this.  In the UK, Maggie Thatcher has been portrayed as a leader who did this, but I'd like to add political leaders such as Clement Attlee, Winston Churchill, Ted Heath, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron: in the USA, most of the last dozen Presidents would probably fit the bill, whilst in Europe, those who pushed for the euro and then fiddled the entry requirements to allow it to actually get off the ground are also culprits - even Germany and France wouldn't have satisfied the original stringent regulations, and I believe that, at one point, the only European economies that would have done were those of Britain and Denmark, both of whom have opted out!!

By concentrating on one section of society to the detriment of another, or by fiddling economic figures to make out that one's economy is stronger than it really is, or allowing one sector of the economy to develop at the cost of other sectors, political leaders have - in effect - 'killed their citizens'; be that their hopes and aspirations, their educational and/or health provision, or just their right to have their voice heard in the political arena.

come to think of it what actually is a liberal democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy might help answer this question.

[AndrewF]

Again, depending on what you mean by 'liberal democracy' and by 'killed their own citizens' then all developed countries (with the possible exception of Switzerland!) and a huger swathe of developing ones have done so, either by having the death penalty (still) in place or by starting/participating in wars.

[AndyHB]

Again, depending on what you mean by 'liberal democracy' and by 'killed their own citizens' then all developed countries (with the possible exception of Switzerland!) and a huger swathe of developing ones have done so, either by having the death penalty (still) in place or by starting/participating in wars.

I had a different sense of 'killed' in mind, Andrew.  Most UK governments over the past 4 or 5 decades have had policies that effectively 'killed' jobs - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.  As a result, people's hopes and plans for their futures have been dashed and communities' futures destroyed.

[Martin]

There have always been the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. Probably Jesus was right when he said that there would always be poor people.  Liberal democracies, in general, have tried to put into place systems where the worst depths of poverty are avoided. People, even the poorest in Britain, generally, have  roof over their heads, can get a square meal and even have just enough to socialise a bit.  Though there may be many things wrong with our system, it could be a lot worse.

Having said that, it is getting increasingly worse, and there seems little that democracy can do about it.  Who can you vote for whose policy manifesto states that they will decrease the gap betwen the richest and the poorest?  Who could you trust to do it even if it was in their manifesto?

Rich, powerful individuals control our media, our governments and therfore our votes and our futures.  In any case, in Britain, we don't live in a democracy.  The First Past The Post System ensures that no new party will rise to power, that no new ideaology can gather momentum.  A new party gaining the popular support of, say, 10% accross the country, is unlikely to get a single seat in government. The rich want it thus. The existing politicians want it thus, and therefore it wil be thus, regardless of what is fair, regardless of what people think.

[AndyHB]

Even more than all that, Martin, is the current collapse in confidence in the very economic system that we have run with for the past 150-200 years. 

[Martin]

Well Marx always said it was unstable.

[AndyHB]

Well Marx always said it was unstable.

But the system he suggested also proved to be unstable - so that doesn't help!!

[Martin]

I'm no political historian, but my understanding is that political regimes that have been called 'communism', are significantly removed from the system that Karl Marx envisaged. It seems that Marx recognised the problems where communist states exist in a world where other capitalist states have great power.   States don't exist in isolation and my understanding is that the failure of the Soviet Union was, to a large part, attributable to the undermining influence of capitalist states.

Not that I'm advocating world communism. I'm to the right of such a position, but I do think that Marx's ideas have much to offer us, and, in the current situation are very helpful.

[Boudi]

Nor did he want to belong to any club that would have him...and quite right too
.

[AndrewF]

Indeed Boudi - but I think that was a different Marx!  :-)

Andy - I can read! :~)  I was offering MY answer to Ecu's question...