This paper is a mess. I don’t think you do a very good job of arguing what a democracy is and why protests go against democracy. At one point you say:

“democracy is a system for achieving compromises between people who disagree on many things”

But this isn’t actually true. Democracy often leads to comprises, but by no means is it a system of compromises. Winner-take-all decisions are regularly made in democracies. I would argue that a modern liberal democracy’s purpose is to allow the people a voice in government via their representatives. In this context a protest is absolutely democratic as it is another way for a group to have their representatives hear their concerns. Using your definition of democratic action we could argue letter writing campaigns are undemocratic, which is also ridiculous.

You argue that essentially protests are unfair because they give large groups a disproportionately large voice, but for a protest to even be noticed it needs thousands of people supporting it. Most protest groups consist of less than 20 people, and we never hear about them because local news stations don’t even think they’re relevant enough for a story. There is a selection bias when considering the effectiveness of a protest because often the only ones we hear about are the largest and most well organized.

A protest does not prevent people from voting. A protest does not force a congressperson to vote either way. A protest does not interfere with any democratic process. Protests are simply a way for people to have there voices heard.

But that would seem to imply that I want other people to have freedom which I thought we agreed doesn't follow.

A very confused philosopher.

I think this is what you get when a conservative bashing wokeism tries to sound fancy and educated.

You’re saying “related to itself” but what do you mean by that? If it’s something physical like the body, then any difference is still arbitrary. For instance, if the cup on my desk has a certain value, it has that value regardless of what desk it happens to be on. It wouldn’t make sense for it to change value if its physically on another desk (or if it did, that would require an additional premise that I’m not assuming). And any equivalent cup would have the same value.

But if you mean “related to itself” as in someone’s personal agency, then what I’m talking about doesn’t relate to itself. It’s just agency and doesn’t depend on someone’s personal agency. The thing doesn’t have value from relating to itself. It’s just a thing with value.

Wells, wells, wells... publicly protesting the concept of public protests. How the turntables.

Yep, that’s the next step. Once the value of people’s freedom is recognized, they’ll act according to that value by obeying the term of the social contract, the expression of individuals’ freedom.

I think you are confusing liberal democracy (which has those basic rules) with democracy in the generic sense that e.g. Plato talked about

In any case, saying that protest is non or anti-democratic shouldn't matter if you don't think democracy is any good

I think what the writer gets wrong is the base assumption that democracies are the most fair form of government and can't be oppressive to the point of needing protest. For example 20 people voting to take the wealth of the richest person is a democratic but isn't exactly fair. This is why a republic is better as it doesn't allow for the overriding of existing rights despite a majority opposing them.

Arguing Flat-Footedly For Provocative-Sounding Conclusions Is Not A Philosophical Thing To Do

[removed]

Well in that case my critique of what you're saying is entirely based on me misunderstanding you.

However, if all you're saying is that we acknowledge that freedom as value regardless of whose freedom it is, how does that belief lead to any constraints on our own behavior? If we're acknowledging that I may have a reasonable reason not to want other people to have freedom then it would seem my actions aren't necessarily constrained in any way and therefore I don't have to be moral.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

>Agency isn’t agent-relative but it’s agency itself.

.......lol?

> It’s a possession which everyone has in equal capacity

No, they really don't have an equal capacity. Not hypothetically, realistically, or even in any manner is it equal.

> no justifiable difference exists (you can’t say that one is more free than others)

Agency over oneself compared to not having agency over another entity is a massive difference.

​

There unfortunately seems to be some big lapse in mutual comprehension here.

Sorry, my bad. I meant right, should have clarified

[deleted]

The author seems to be assuming a perfect democracy where all politicians are good willed angles enacting policies solely on the will of the people.

Protests are a good sign that a democracy either isn't working or is just an outright lie.

I couldn't help but find this article amusing because in the last protest I was part of (fighting for better pay and working conditions for grad students who had recently unionized at a local university) we were all chanting "this is what democracy looks like". Maybe the author of this article should head on over to the US and get some perspective on this. What they wrote feels extremely out of touch.

I have to assume most people upvoting this didn't read it? Because the title is interesting - it's attractive to believe in the power of philosophical ideas if you are into philosophy - but the actual article fails to really get into this other than just saying that Berlin said this.

The author might have a point if all public protests are a reaction to democratic votes, but most public protests are against political or private interests that could never be addressed by democracy. January 6th and associated trucker disruptions might be the only example in the US I can think of. Even saying that political decisions by elected officials are democracy, but consider that politicians misrepresent themselves all the time, or there are new influences after the election that affect decisions.

Ok, now explain the Civil Rights Movement in this context. According to this author, Rosa Parks was anti-democratic and self righteous.

[removed]

> justification to value their own freedom.

Skeptic is interested in being consistent. They can't say "I value x but I don't value x", and they can't say "I value freedom as such but I don't value x's freedom" and so on. But as long as they are consistent, they don't see the need to provide justifications for why they value what they value. The skeptic can say they value "their own freedom, but not others'", it seems completely consistent to me. The "difference" is merely that their own freedom is the capacity that they have, and they can exercise; and the skeptic values things that are related to themselves in an empowring manner.

You can say that's an "arbitrary" difference. But I am not sure what criteria for "non-arbtirariness" is here. Any "random" difference should go to allow the skeptic being consistent. You may say that the skeptic has to justify why the skeptic cares about the "arbitrary difference". But, it seems odd to ask justification for "values", because they usually turn into explanation in terms of other "values". It's not the kind of thing that can be derived from laws of logic. The skeptic may be Humean; allowing reason to be slave to passions, and allow some values to be just brute psychological force (like hunger). The skeptic values 75% dark chocolate rather than chocolate in general, because he just does. Similarly the skeptic values things that increases the power of self (like the particular capacity of freedom (not freedom in general) that they possess) because the skeptic simply does.

> We understand that free beings have value compared to non-free beings (inanimate objects). We wouldn’t have a reasonable justification to prioritize only our own freedom is freedom is equal.

I don't "understand" that free beings "have" value. I simply brutely find myself respecting the freedom of others as my my own given no overriding reasons.

Well your neighbor in that case already has freedom. Now it’s just about recognition and valuing of freedom. But I wouldn’t argue that people would necessarily want others to have freedom (say non-conscious animals). All I argue is that freedom is equal in one dimension and because it’s not agent relative, must have a universal value in itself.

I think saying X's value here is confusing. If I say that I value my neighbors Tesla then the implication is that I want it for myself. If I say that I value my neighbors freedom the implication is that I want my neighbor to have freedom which is actually contrary to the first example.