Francis Fukuyama vs John Gray: Is there a better alternative to liberal democracy?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2022
- Political scientist Francis Fukuyama and philosopher John Gray debate whether there is a better alternative to liberal democracy.
Best known for arguing that liberal democracy would mark ‘the end of History’, Francis Fukuyama has spent much of the last 30 years responding to questions about his contested prediction. In this conversation, he is joined by British political philosopher John Gray, who rejects the idea of universal liberal values and human progress.
In light of Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine, the two leading thinkers debate why people are motivated to tolerate certain regimes or seek a better life elsewhere.
This clip is from the Intelligence Squared event ‘Is Liberalism Obsolete?’ recorded on 22 March 2022. Watch the full conversation here: www.intelligencesquared.com/e...
About Intelligence Squared:
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world.
Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Click here to subscribe on Apple Podcasts and receive our audio podcasts as soon as they are released: apple.co/3nKUHV4
Brilliant minds, debate, online events, ask your questions. Try Intelligence Squared +: www.intelligencesquared.com/plus
WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE SQUARED+?
Intelligence Squared+ brings you live, interactive events online every week. You can ask your questions to our speakers, vote in live polls and interact with other members of the audience. Your subscription will give you access to multiple events, live and on-demand, featuring the world’s top thinkers and opinion formers.
Subscribe to Intelligence Squared+ today: www.intelligencesquared.com/plus
Follow Intelligence Squared:
Instagram: / intelligencesquared
Facebook: / intelligence2
Twitter: / intelligence2
Listen to our podcasts?
Intelligence Squared Podcast: play.acast.com/s/intelligence...
How I Found My Voice with Samira Ahmed: apple.co/32WnrPV
In the spirit of intellectual thinking, please post the entire video
Would be nice if IQ2 could posted the 'full' debate, also. //Thanks for sharing this excerpt.
The problems of democracy are:
1- Weakening the government by making the people the decision maker and not the ruler while in reality the body is not the one who rules, but the head
2- and the most important and most dangerous is that democracy does not care about the experience and competent, but rather the choice of the majority, which leads in large proportions to the arrival of the corrupt, fanatics and incompetent to govern only because they have the majority of votes
3- Democracy is not the most important for the people but more importantly is the prosperity and the prosperity could be in undemocratic governments
Most interesting conversation.
I agree with John Gray. A liberal democracy is not for everyone. It is for some, but not others. What people are drawn to in Europe and its outposts such as America and Canada is prosperity, stability and safety (which is uneven in the U.S.). But can anyone and everyone handle a wide range and degree of liberty? Obviously not. The American Founders believed that it is a necessary condition for liberty that people be reasonably virtuous and self-controlled. Otherwise, the order and stability in a free society will break down and then the disorder, crime, dishonesty and lack of social trust will ensue. Many people need a lot more structure and paternalism than the West offers.
Awesome intellectuals 👍🌸
Please Upload complete debate
When is the full debate available
The problems of democracy are:
1- Weakening the government by making the people the decision maker and not the ruler while in reality the body is not the one who rules, but the head
2- and the most important and most dangerous is that democracy does not care about the experience and competent, but rather the choice of the majority, which leads in large proportions to the arrival of the corrupt, fanatics and incompetent to govern only because they have the majority of votes
3- Democracy is not the most important for the people but more importantly is the prosperity and the prosperity could be in undemocratic governments
People always go to places where they can get higher incomes. Do Singopore people move to India?
Where is full episode?
The issue isn't necessarily that liberal democracy will always work better than any other form of government from moment to moment. It's that liberal governments are less likely to go off the rails than illiberal ones, as we've seen happen to the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation.
And China….it killed 25 million to cement Mao as it’s leader.
We the US are a liberal “democracy”, a democracy with only two parties, that are the same thing, with an outdated non democratic electoral college, gerrymanderism, vote suppression, etc. I have seen all,those tricks here in Texas. Japan is a liberal democracy, with one extreme right party winning always, just to give two examples of democracies, hahaha.
The problems of democracy are:
1- Weakening the government by making the people the decision maker and not the ruler while in reality the body is not the one who rules, but the head
2- and the most important and most dangerous is that democracy does not care about the experience and competent, but rather the choice of the majority, which leads in large proportions to the arrival of the corrupt, fanatics and incompetent to govern only because they have the majority of votes
3- Democracy is not the most important for the people but more importantly is the prosperity and the prosperity could be in undemocratic governments
And, increasingly, the People’s Republic of China.
@@Teporame The US parties are not the same thing. In fact, each party is a coalition of different factions that each contain different views and policy preferences.
Calling the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party “far right” is extremely stupid.
Agree with both perspectives. Liberal democracy takes much more work to sustain but requires a reasonably engaged civil society.
The recent crisis of faith is not of democracy itself but the result of the allowance of oligarchy to flourish (or even celebrated) within it. Social imbalances have been grossly exaggerated. That's why the criticism within is louder than that from those outside of it.
Two caveats. A well-functioning democracy requires a ready populace. It takes generations to develop the societal norms so simply replicating institutions elsewhere shouldn't be expected to achieve immediate results. Secondly, economic 'success' at a national level has no necessary relation to the political model it adopts; They may sometimes run in parallel but one need not guarantee the other.
Widespread literacy is about the only thing I would say might require a certain amount of prosperity to acquire so democracy can be sustained. Although, India managed democracy for decades without it...
The problems of democracy are:
1- Weakening the government by making the people the decision maker and not the ruler while in reality the body is not the one who rules, but the head
2- and the most important and most dangerous is that democracy does not care about the experience and competent, but rather the choice of the majority, which leads in large proportions to the arrival of the corrupt, fanatics and incompetent to govern only because they have the majority of votes
3- Democracy is not the most important for the people but more importantly is the prosperity and the prosperity could be in undemocratic governments
@@thedarkking32These are common complaints of democracy whenever challenges are encountered however one assumes that the (simpler) alternative provides some sort of guarantees of success (it doesn't).
One only needs to to look at history to see that so-called rulers are often despotic when provided such unchecked power. 'Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.' There was a reason civilization as a whole has evolved away from absolute monarchs to constitutional forms of government with lasting prosperity.
Democracy is indeed a messier form of government however this is merely reflective of the societies in which they reside. It also encompasses a wide range of governments with various degrees of majoritarianism allowed by structure and function. It is a mystical brew of morality (by religion or civic values), education and nationalism (among other elements) that binds successful civil societies together in the nation-state age. Returning to the right balance there is the solution, not wholesale changes in the governmental structure that takes us backwards (with historical amnesia frankly).
@@mhl5163 I do not think that democracy is the best way to govern but rather the self-choice practiced by the Romans, where the ruler chooses his successor on the condition that he is accepted by the Senate, and this is what must happen, the common people has no political experience and run after those who can achieve their various interests, whether they are corrupt fanatics or monks who exploit religion for their own benefit to rule
@@squamish4244 I wouldn't go as far as saying literacy is the only thing required of civil societies but indeed critical. Albeit 'fuzzier,' something else needs to bind societies together for instance. In India's case, this seemed to be a blend of anti-colonialism and religious pluralism at its core. It is young as a nation-state however and clearly going through growing pains currently (some say overdue) while figuring out what this blend should be (while increasingly in the glaring lights of the world stage).
While we're all cheering on India's democracy, voter turnout by quantity (often paraded internationally) is not the most important measure of long-term stability and success (at least if combined with the wide lack of literacy/education as you note). Let's hope that their redefinition of India as a nation by the new elite does not require irreversible changes in the civil society from which its past success came. To an outsider, India has too many contradictions to make sense of it all (I dare say for many natives as well despite claims) so I'll defer to their numerous scholars to do so from their rich tradition.
It’s called a Republic….ordered liberty. It requires a moral polity however.
And they go to Singapore..
I don’t think many are voting to become a low income black person in the US suburbs though. -- Those who have the choice to vote by feet are a small portion of a society.
The problems of democracy are:
1- Weakening the government by making the people the decision maker and not the ruler while in reality the body is not the one who rules, but the head
2- and the most important and most dangerous is that democracy does not care about the experience and competent, but rather the choice of the majority, which leads in large proportions to the arrival of the corrupt, fanatics and incompetent to govern only because they have the majority of votes
3- Democracy is not the most important for the people but more importantly is the prosperity and the prosperity could be in undemocratic governments
The end declares itself but its owner does not believe it.
And the beginning sneaks in so that its owner doesn't realize it.
The world needs a system that preserves tillage, offspring, rights and duties and unleashes all positive energies and reduces negativity.
A system that is not subject to the desires of the capricious human soul with limited perception of desires
The best system is the divine system that does not oppress and does not bias a comprehensive just system among all human beings, soul to soul and eye to eye.
i hate those teasers
"Perception = Reality" or "Perception = Propaganda"?
its defiantly Propaganda.
Mr. Fukuyama has a good point. Put aside the rhetoric and look at what people do. Very few folks want to go to repressive police states China or authoritarian states like Russia. Hundreds of thousands are voting with their feet and look for opportunity in the West in general, and in specific to the USA and to a somewhat lesser degree Europe. By comparison Mr. Gray's points are interesting by little more than waffle.
The problems of democracy are:
1- Weakening the government by making the people the decision maker and not the ruler while in reality the body is not the one who rules, but the head
2- and the most important and most dangerous is that democracy does not care about the experience and competent, but rather the choice of the majority, which leads in large proportions to the arrival of the corrupt, fanatics and incompetent to govern only because they have the majority of votes
3- Democracy is not the most important for the people but more importantly is the prosperity and the prosperity could be in undemocratic governments
Fukuyama and Strauss' points are that liberal democracy is only better as long as it wins. In many departments its already lost to China. The voting with the feet, an old Chicago school argument, is also deceptive. Chinese citizens go to the USA all the time, buy up property, creating nepotistic networks and undermine non-Chinese, this benefits China. People moving to your country don't necessarily do so because it's better, they might very well do so because the system is easy to exploit either for the sake of parasitism (think European migration crisis) or state backed infiltration (this is why you have Chinese secret police and lobby groups operating in every single one of these supposedly superior liberal democracies).
If only every other political system hadn't failed so horribly, to paraphrase Churchill.
The simple conclusion? It's the least worst.
We are bankrupt and being demographically replaced by mass immigration.
Collapse coming.
Income is everything. Dictatorship is a minor irritation. Democracy means the rule of idiots, which is also an irritation.
Not sure poor people from dysfunctional States are leaving their countries for 'liberal democracies'? Perhaps, for the historic and economic ties that is often the reason their countries do not function in the first place? That migration could be reversed only by easing off, and re-educating them on how to build functional States. This might even be profitable, too.
Yes.
Kalifate and sharia law.
Wrong question.
Benevolent Dictatorship.
A large part of the decline in standards of public servants and leadership in democracies can be directly correlated to the introduction of universal suffrage.
When there is a normal distribution in intelligence or any other desirable human characteristic and both ends of the distribution have equal weight in the selection process then it is clear that a poor outcome is guaranteed. Plato had it all worked out for us, I can’t find only minor revisions needed to his proposition.
I most definitely agree that democracy is flawed. However, Plato's philosopher king seems unviable as well. Of course we should wish that a benevolent astute just and knowledgeable leader should govern us but finding one if they are even possible is daunting.
An interesting concept I found is that perhaps such a leader should not exist at all. Suppose we looked at citizenship as a service. Suppose I am born in one country but find its policy unfitting. Then I can find a country which better suits me and sell my citizenship for another.
@@eladpeleg745 The first step is to remove vested financial interests from the system. The incentives of the state should be driven towards providing the best possible outcomes for its citizens, as opposed to the best outcomes for the political donors. Take the money out of politics and you are at least disincentivising those whom participate for financial gain, it would be a step in the right direction and only result in better outcomes.
@@yp77738yp77739 How do you do that? The existence of a government necessitates financial interest because whoever makes the rules and enforces them will always be in a position to influence the flow of money which in itself is a form of power. If you have an idea as to how one could decouple these then I am most interested in hearing it... Pardon my pessimism
@@eladpeleg745 Plato gave us the blueprint to do this. They must have selected from orphans and be unmarried and have no progeny (to avoid nepotism), they must have undergone a practical selection process of increasing complex public service appointments, they must have no ownership of anything (completely fed, clothed and housed by the state), serve for a strictly limited term and must remain such until their death. And be appointed by a group of similarly independent peers, democracy wouldn’t work in this system.
In that way, there would be no vested interest in anything of a selfish nature. I’m sure it would be an effective system, it’s not that different from the way in which Popes are elected but the criteria must be more strictly controlled.
No one ever asks a different question. Government or no government? Why do we only debate forms of government and never ask if we actually need a government at all? This leaves out alternative ways of organizing communities and resources in new ways. Also, how about the faulty assumption that all forms of government, have had equal opportunities to flourish without interventions from imperialist powers?
Government didn't descend upon us. It came from us. Talking about the time from no-government to government. Why did humans feel the need to have that thing there? 10 people can cooperate without a formal organization. 100 people can cooperate without it. 1000? 1 million? 100 million? Somewhere along history, animals grew a dedicated brain to coordinate different parts of the body. Somewhere along later history, humans felt the need to have some people dedicated to organizing themselves so that they aren't fighting with each other all the time and have some rules to live with, and maybe also some collective long-planning and division of labor. You lived to this day while enjoying many resources granted by an organized society. You learned reading and typing with a computer produced by sophisticated organization. Think about the system.
@@waldenli9232 a desire for no government directly stems from “thinking about the system.” I never consented to a social contract. I was born into it and if I had a choice, I would have never agreed to enter it. This is a question of autonomy and subservience to a state that you were born into is not autonomy. Autonomy is actually a hallmark of other forms of living such as anarcho-syndicalism, which is the only form of “governance” that relies on true direct democracy.
without a government. there would be a power vacuum. and humans being humans will try to get that land that does not have a government . and as always the imperialist power needs that oil .
The Singapore comparison is great. Yea, you can live in Singapore where things are rather orderly but at what cost? The cost is that you are a slave, encouraged to turn off your critical thinking - and you know it. Trapped socially, culturally, and politically. Laws are so vague that everything can be a crime if the government decides you commit too many public thoughtcrimes, a reality reinforced by the constant parading of "offenders" in court and on all news media. You are acutely aware of the cost of each of your actions so you self-censor on the daily and pretend to get along with everyone. Behind closed doors you are a completely different person to what you present and no one knows about it. At first this sort of system worked, even with its blatant racism and eugenics against Malays and Indians, because previous generations craved stability. But it is now understood that stability can exist at a much lesser cost. Poverty is not incompatible with the human condition, but mental slavery is. Detroit all the way baby.
Things aren't working in any country, so maybe we need a new form of government. Francis Fukuyama has been wrong about everything for the last 20 years, so let's ask his opinion.
omg, it's the Jordan Peterson GQ interviewer, lol.
Yes. Democrat democracy.
Immigration is anti-democratic
You can get fined for jaywalking literally anywhere in the US
Apreciando a una mujer tan hermosa. 2:8 sentadillas son unos XX18LIKE.Uno muchas y un buen ejercicio. 5:25 Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😍👍 Saludos desde la Cd.. de world losn mortales abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer
National socialism
I'm surprised that after Helen Lewis's total disaster interviewing Jordan Peterson for GQ, anyone is still letting her get close to a microphone to do an interview. 50 million views on that interview, and each comment was, "I can't wait not to buy her book."
Yeah, the lobsters got real riled up by that interview. And by anything that makes them think critically about Peterslam, really.
any and every alternative is better than liberal democracy.
As in Sparta with 80% of the population as slaves?
@@abhimanyukarnawat7441 99% are slaves to the Bankers today.
Folks just getting started against far left moonie cult militant progressivism in Nwo academe where these two geniuses hale from ☮