Has a democracy ever collapsed from having too much freedom?

[Oak2004]

That's a question I'm asking for my fellow history buffs, as we march towards internal passports and the prohibition of internal movement by citizens who belong to the "wrong" organizations or advocate the "wrong" views.

I was just watching, on CSPAN, what passed for a hearing on the terrorist watch list. It seemed no one was asking the right questions (Democrat or Republican). The concerns were about "misidentification", not about the way legal dissent will get one put on the list, not to mention what terrorism is defined at in the US.

I'm a meat eater. Not only do I eat meat, I used to hunt, and would hunt again in a New York minute if I knew how to get my wheelchair onto good turkey grounds. What's more, I have a parrot -- an intelligent wild animal, traffic in which is regulated by the treaty of endangered species -- captive in my home (my parrot wouldn't have it any other way, but nonetheless...). I am nearly the epitome of "the enemy" in the eyes of many animal rights extremists. And I, knowing of the instances of potentially deadly sabotage of hunters by animal rights groups, their drive to sabotage medial research, some of which might someday let me toss the wheelchair aside and head back to the woods, and their heartless abuse of pets in the name of "liberating" them, don't think much of them, either.

But defining them as terrorist? And, if things go as proposed, preventing or restricting their movement about the country?

The Republicrats have performed a miracle -- they've created conditions where I want to stand, arm-in-arm, with my Animal Liberation Front brothers and sisters, in common cause.

Lets flip this around for a moment: neoliberals come to power. Looking at the militia maniacs that lurk within the NRA, and pointing to the genuine instances of terror perpetrated by this far right fringe, they decide the NRA provides material assistance to terrorists and is a terrorist organization. I'm a life member of the NRA, and I've certainly mingled with at least militia -wannabes in gun clubs. I am therefore prohibited from using any public transportation in America, or ever leaving the country? Is the Right comprehending that this is where this leads?

I can't think of an instance where a democracy fell because it was too free. I can think of a number of instances of its opposite. Can anyone think of one?

[HereSince1628]

1. The Power of Nightmares documentary argues that both radical Islamists and the NeoCons

share this same belief. That society has become too free and must be reined in and given simple models of right and wrong.

[The2ndWheel]

2. I would think it would

As another example, if you chose not to pay your taxes, if you were caught, you'd be thrown in jail and/or fined. Too much freedom would be the right to choose which taxes you wanted to pay, or the right to choose to pay no taxes, without fear of penalty.

Democracy is a system of centralized government. If there was too much freedom, you couldn't have democracy. That includes the animals that are held captive in cages for our benefit, and only our benefit(And I support your hunting, that's what we as animals do. While I don't agree with what we do to them medically, I'm not about to bomb the labs, since the desire for that type of power is what causes the labs in the first place, and won't solve much anyway. Sort the same way we spread democracy around the world).

My best guess is that too much freedom would collapse whatever a democracy is.

[Clintonista2]

3. Ancient greek philosophers saw democracy as one of the worst forms of gov't

They believed that unrestrained democracy ("too much" freedom)was nothing more than mob rule.

[Selatius]

4. That's why checks and balances were invented to shield minority rights from violation.

Athens operated upon the principle of direct democracy, but they didn't have something such as the bill of rights or due process the same way we do today. If we were talking about a small town, direct democracy would work, but I wouldn't recommend it unless the charter included an amendment process and a bill of rights that protects minority rights from violation.

Perhaps the best example of a direct democracy today is Switzerland.

[Oak2004]

6. It was closer to oligarchy

I know America is a de-facto oligarchy, but in principle I can go to the city clerk right now, pick up a petition for mayor, collect my signatures, and run for office, despite the fact that my sole income is a small Social Security check. The vast majority of Athenians could do no such thing.

[Clintonista2]

10. But that's exactly what the OP is talking about

Checks and balances are meant to limit freedom. A purely "free" democracy (direct democracy), contrary to restrained (representative democracy), would collapse into mob rule. So in answer of the OP's question, I think that "too much" freedom is definatley a bad thing in a democracy.

[Uncle Joe]

12. To the contrary, I believe the primary reason for checks and balances were intended

to prevent autocratic rule from taking hold and there by eliminating freedom, the founders were most familiar with the history of the kings and popes before having abused their power.

I believe this is why Cheney/Bush and the neocons use Orwellian speak claiming the terrorists hate us for our freedom, while simultaneously doing everything they can to eliminate it, themselves. Fascism rose in Germany from the fear of freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of privacy, freedom of thought, freedom of movement and freedom of speech, you either toed the line or you died.

Representative government was intended to avoid the pitfalls of a pure democracy via other tools such as the electoral college. This was to prevent too much concentration of power to the large states and thus serve as a curb from them dominating the small ones.

[Oak2004]

5. In the abstract, yes, but I'm looking for actual example

People don't create governments that don't govern (the abstract example you cite). There'd be no point to it.

When I talk about "too much freedom", what I mean is has any democratic nation's Bill of Rights equivalent ever led to is downfall, not be being insufficient (i.e., not by permitting government abuses), but by preventing a government from dealing with foriegn or domestic enemies. Has any democratic government fallen because it did not restrict freedom of speech, press, association, religion, habeas corpus, protection against unreasonable searches, etc? Or have democratic countries collapsed though either overwhelming military force or the restriction of those freedoms?

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. NO... open societies are closed in very predictable ways

and they follow the same pattern every time

Read Naomi Wolf's The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot for a consice explanation

But what you are seeing is them calling on powerful (and mostly imagined) internal and external enemies when they speak of internal passports and suspencion of civil rights

[Annces]

8. Your parrot would not have it any other way?

Ya right. It loves freedom the way you would love yours.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Actually our kids woudl not have it any other way

they are very intelligent animals and they depend on me these days for everything

We have open commiunications and when at home they all waddle\fly around.

They are part of my flock or I am part of theirs.

And trust me, my twenty year old cockatiel would starve if we let him go at this point, and he is a happy, and i mean that, very happy bird.

Now the Nanday, he might make it... but our sun, she's also starve as she was also hand raised.

And they are amazing animals... and we actually communicate.

[CJCRANE]

11. I think you're right

about your birds and humans aren't so different either.

In the novel "The Life of Pi" the narrator makes a very good point about modern houses being similar to zoo enclosures - just like zoo animals we have most of our requirements piped directly to us (e.g. water etc). We choose to occupy a limited space with all conveniences provided because it's much easier than going to the nearest river (for example) or foraging and hunting for food.
(Of course we would be much more "free" if we didn't live in houses...)

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. And most of us would starve

but we are ok wiht this... since it is far less work

[Oak2004]

14. There is an instance where a quaker parrot in the US was lost

become "adopted" by a wild flock, lived with the flock with (can't remember exactly) upwards of a year, and then, upon spotting its human owner, left the wild flock, flew to the owner, and happily returned. There are many other instances where parrots have made it clear they would much rather be with their human companion than "free" (these instances include wild-caught, as well as human raised, birds). Parrots have sometimes said as much, in English (yes, it's been demonstrated these guys use words in context with meaning. Parrot owners have daily "Dr. Doolittle" experiences).

I put "free" there in quotes because proper parrot care means integrating the bird into the family. Mine is, right now, lunching off my plate. Mine is obviously not allowed the "freedom" to lunch on electrical cords, or bathe in boiling pasta pots, or any of the other bad ideas he's expressed, but aside from protecting him from hazards he doesn't understand, he has the freedom that any family member might have. His cage is his bedroom, not his cell. Since parrot family structures are nearly identical to human family structures, this relationship isn't too much of a stretch for them. Well cared for birds see captivity less as imprisonment than as safety from predators and easy food.

I don't think keeping parrots is for everyone. They are wild animals, and as such remain tame only as long as you earn their trust and loyalty every day (i.e., it's as demanding a relationship as with any human). The other option used with taming wild animals -- breaking their will -- aside from its obvious inhumaneness -- absolutely will not work with a parrot. Anyone inclined to order, rather than persuade, will quickly learn parrots don't take orders. On top of it all they're among the most intelligent animals on earth, and if you don't keep them stimulated, they will make their own stimulation, to the detriment of your personal property.

All that said, this is off-topic.