Democracy, choices, freedom, commercialism

[thir]

During the discussion of religion and income a new thread has surfaced:

What is freedom? Choices? Democracy?

As I have read it from the previous thread, freedom of choices is simply freedom to choose what you wish to buy, that is, to have as many of each category to choose from as possbile.

While I can see that some competition can be useful, I do not believe that an overwhelming amount of stuff equals freedom, not can I see it as a right.

To me, freedom and democracy means something like having a lot of influence on your own life, in all ways, within reasonable boundaries, such as not oppressing or hurting others. It means being able to choose your life-style, your sexuality, your religion - things that are important for you.

"Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, by consensus (consensus democracy), by direct referendum (direct democracy), or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy)."
"Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[4] equality and freedom have been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.".
"if any democracy is not carefully legislated – through the use of balances – to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power, thus become undemocratic."

This happens in some societies, for instance theocracies, but it can also happen with strong, mulitinational corps, simply because they are so wealthy.

So, what is freedom, democracy, choices?

How is it upheld?

Is commercialism a nessecary part of it? If no, why not? If yes, why?

[Thorne]

As I have read it from the previous thread, freedom of choices is simply freedom to choose what you wish to buy, that is, to have as many of each category to choose from as possbile.
I don't think that's quite right. Freedom of choice is, of course, having the right to decide which choice to make from among those given. Should I get a PC or a Mac? Should I buy a Ford, Chrysler or Chevy? Or should I buy a foreign make? RCA or Zenith? AT&T or Verizon? These kinds of choices are important to consumers, and having the competition helps to benefit the quality and reliability of the products. If one brand of car falls apart after a couple of years, sooner or later people will stop buying them. If a particular brand of TV requires constant repairs, who's going to want to buy that TV?

How many here remember when there was only one phone company? If you had a phone in your home, it belonged to Ma Bell, and you rented it. True, they were generally reliable, built to last, but they were hardly fashionable, and any improvements were developed at a snail's pace. When the government broke up the phone company, creating competition, the development of new styles and kinds of phones literally exploded. Prices dropped, innovation grew, and we now have individualized phones with more computing power in them than NASA had to put men on the moon.

Do we NEED dozens of different brands of canned string beans? Probably not. But do the corporations have the right to try to sell their own brands? Of course. And if their brand is better, they will succeed.


While I can see that some competition can be useful, I do not believe that an overwhelming amount of stuff equals freedom, not can I see it as a right.
While I can agree that we don't have a right to expect an overwhelming amount of products, those who are making those products do have the right to try to market them. THAT is freedom. And we can either buy or not buy. THAT is freedom as well.


To me, freedom and democracy means something like having a lot of influence on your own life, in all ways, within reasonable boundaries, such as not oppressing or hurting others. It means being able to choose your life-style, your sexuality, your religion - things that are important for you.
Exactly. But we have to accept responsibility with freedom. We cannot expect to impose our choices on everyone else. They also have freedom to choose. We cannot do just as we please if it will endanger others. We cannot take whatever we want because it impinges on others rights. Everyone's freedom is necessarily restricted by the freedoms of those around us.


How is it upheld?
Our freedoms are upheld by mutually acceptable laws which, of necessity, can limit some freedoms in order to preserve our overall freedom.


Is commercialism a nessecary part of it?
In an ideal world, probably not. Everyone would work to do what needs to be done, without thought of compensation, and everyone would receive what they need to survive, without worry about the cost. We don't live in an ideal world, though, so I think commercialism is necessary, yes. We get paid for our services (wages) and we pay for what we need or want. Competition among corporations helps to keep the cost of buying those things we want lower. Attracting customers to their product is a necessity for competitors, a necessary part of commercialism. But ultimately, the power is in the hands of the consumer. The trick, and the difficulty, is in getting consumers to use that power intelligently. Watching how people throw their money away, buying the biggest, newest, fanciest products, makes me wonder if there is any intelligence there at all!

[denuseri]

I may be becoming more of a western european socialist than my capitalist conservative parents would be comfortable with, (shrugs but who am I kidding...I am a progressive registed republican who identifies as an independent tea bagger)becuase I dont see one reason in hell why profits beyound a certian degree shouldnt be re-invested into the economey as a whole at the lowest levels...it would only benifit us all.

Would this really limit our choices as consumers? I doubt it. It didnt limit anything for the europeans all that much if at all.

Corperations were originally only temporary formed for the explicit purpose of combining individual resources to build specific public works...such as a city park or an amphlitheater etc.

They were initially designed to be a public service....not to become some kind of tyranical headless faceless greed monster that only worked for the sake of profit and profit alone, who can now in the USA outright buy any politician they wish openly.

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with "fixing" them when it is obvious they are broken.

"Unless the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophize, and political power and philosophy coincide in the same place, while the many natures now making their way to either apart from the other are by necessity excluded, there is no rest from ills for the cities, my dear Glaucon, nor I think for human kind, nor will the regime we have now described in speech ever come forth from nature, insofar as possible, and see the light of the sun." Plato's Republic