Is libertarianism incompatible with Democracy?

[InsaneApache]

Depends on the type of democracy. Representative democracy probably. Direct democracy, no.

How about this one.

Is socialism compatible with democracy?

I say not.

[Montmorency]

According the the Economists's response, Mises and Hayek loved democracy.

[E]ven a wholly sober and unsentimental consideration which regards democracy as a mere convention making possible a peaceful change of the holders of power should make us understand that it is an ideal worth fighting for to the utmost, because it is our only protection (even if in its present form not a certain one) against tyranny. Though democracy itself is not freedom (except for that indefinite collective, the majority of 'the people') it is one of the most important safeguards of freedom. As the only method of peaceful change of government yet discovered, it is one of those paramount though negative values, comparable to sanitary precautions against the plague, of which we are hardly aware while they are effective, but the absence of which may be deadly.

[Xiahou]

According the the Economists's response, Mises and Hayek loved democracy.

The first line in the story really said all that needed to be said about the article linked in the OP.

THIS column of Michael Lind content reminds me that ideologues enjoy nothing so much as shamelessly misrepresenting the content and history of other, opposed ideologies.

The Salon piece was total trash.

[Ironside]

The majority of people think that fairness is mainly a question of people getting what they deserve, rather than being about equal treatment. This is true of voters of all the main parties. 63% of people say that “fairness is about getting what you deserve”, while just 26% say that “fairness is about equality”. In other words, people’s idea of fairness is strongly reciprocal – something for something.

Meritocratic ideas (reward according to effort and ability) are more widely endorsed than either free market conceptions (reward according to what the market will pay) or egalitarian conceptions (equal rewards). 85% backed fairness as meritocracy, while 63% backed the free market conception and only 41% an egalitarian version.

The problem is in the details. Fairness is relative. Is it fair to be payed 100 times more than an average worker for any job you do (the equivalent of 4.000 hour weeks)? Is it fair when someone's abillities has been constantly hampered thruoghout the childhood? Even the meritocratic game can be rigged, both ways.

It's a nice analysis of the UK, but it's not general and is missing a big point. Of course classical liberalism is compitable with democracy, it's one of the cornerstones behind it.

The question is if libertarianism starts to become more autocratic in the same way* that heavy collectivism creates the authorian part of the left. No personal comments on it yet, since I haven't thought about libertarians thinking from the "I can never reach power through democracy" aspect.

*Well, it's not formed the same way ideologically (except for the temporary dictorship to create to promised land, but that might only been one guy). The left gets authoritarian when it becomes equality at any cost, instead of increased equality gives increased freedom. The libertarian one would be my freedom at any cost and both are suffering hard from the "I know best"-syndrome.

Depends on the type of democracy. Representative democracy probably. Direct democracy, no.

How about this one.

Is socialism compatible with democracy?

I say not.

The democratically adapted version has been called social democracy for quite some time now. Your point?