Health Care Systems in Liberal Democracies

Available in the National Library of Australia collection. Format: Book; xiii, p.: ill. ; 23 cm.
Table of contents

• Health Care Systems In Liberal Democracies for Sale | Ownai
• A philosophical framework linking democracy and health
• The Future of Liberal Democracy

Order a copy Copyright or permission restrictions may apply. We will contact you if necessary. To learn more about Copies Direct watch this short online video. How do I find a book? Can I borrow this item? Can I get a copy? Can I view this online? Rigg Medicine and the state: Members of Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and Maori communities are advised that this catalogue contains names and images of deceased people. Book , Online - Google Books. A doctrine of freedom of thought and discussion based on the belief in the limited autonomy of reason - that is, the capacity of rational individuals - as the sole and sufficient canon objective truth [ 9 ].

Many people will argue that liberal democracy is not democratic or liberal. They argue that liberal democracy does not respect the will of the people except when residents were asked to choose their representatives, and freedom is restricted by the constitution or precedent. Critics will argue that, by denying citizens the right to vote on all issues - the problem is very serious as going to war or constitutional amendment - liberal democracy is the precursor of oligarchy, or government controlled by the elite few. Others would say that only a liberal democracy can guarantee the individual liberties of citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship.

Unmoderated majority rule could, in their view, led to persecution of various minorities [ 10 ]. In the essay recently, the philosopher Richard Rorty sketches a portrait of a dystopian gloomy where Western democracy headed: The same structure seems to be taking shape in China and in Asia southeast. In countries run this way, public opinion is not really matter. Elections may still be held, but opposition parties are now allowed to pose a serious threat to the powers that be.

Careers are less open to talent, and more dependent on the relationship with strong people. Because the courts and police review boards are relatively powerless, it is often necessary for shopkeepers to pay protection money to the police, or criminals tolerated by the police, in order to stay in business. It is dangerous for citizens to complain about corruption about the abuse of power by public officials. High culture is restricted to areas that are irrelevant to politics No more uncensored media. No more student demonstrations.

Not much in the way of civil society. In short, go back to the old regime, the national security establishment of each country playing the role of court in Versailles" [ 11 ].

In the early s, the end of the Cold War has brought revalidation democracy with great enthusiasm as the most representative form of government. But this excitement has been offset by criticism of failures and shortcomings. Democracy guarantees political freedom, the rule of law, human rights and a platform for citizen engagement in the political process. However, in practice, democracy has many disadvantages. Inequality, economic inequality, powerlessness, lack of opportunities, civil liberties violations, discrimination of ethnic, social and cultural rights, corruption and opaque system of honorary titles of all present, and does not seem to conflict with democracy [ 12 ].

Health Care Systems In Liberal Democracies for Sale | Ownai

Globally, democracy has also acted in a manner that suggests a direct rejection of the principles of their home. There are challenges curb the huge bureaucracy that came to see themselves as above democratic politics. There is a corporate elite that say that achieving efficiency in production and distribution can only be achieved through hierarchical control - that democracy must be done strictly with political representation but stops in the domain of production; technocratic elite who said that the management of a modern state and economy is too complicated for the ordinary citizen and should be left to the experts; national security elite who said that the urgency of providing national security and implement contemporary warfare involving split-second decision requires previous restrictions on freedom of the classical era and the isolation of the national security establishment of what they perceived as insulting "strangeness" civilian democratic politics.

What is dangerous about the behavior of these elites is that even as they quietly maintain that a technocratic centralization is critical of modern society and that democratic practice must adjust this fact of life, they opportunistically use the slogan limiting and reducing government to hide their technocratic agenda. Let me end by saying that with democracy facing the global crisis, we cannot approach the problem as if it was just one of tinkering with a process that is essentially sound and simply need sorting out. We were faced with the classical questions of democratic theory, the fundamental question, which we must frame ideas and institutional solutions appropriate for the times.

Looking ahead, the competence of liberal democracy will be decided by how to manage puzzles participation and institutional resilience. Important, too, will be the legitimacy of political orientation and policies that rely on self-sacrifice and "moral ambiguity" in the "political system that legitimizes the decision on the basis of a formal, truth procedural without distinction of content" and "with no reference to substantive justice and there is no link to a system of the highest value. Arguably, much will depend on whether democracy finds broad willingness to live without a single sense of common interests and with the understanding that the policy results are temporary [ 13 ].

The future of liberal democracy requires the solution of what Dahl identifies six decades ago as a matter of variations in the intensity with which people and groups continue the policy preferences. Democracy must consider what happens when the "consensus underlying the policies that usually exist in society between the dominant majority of politically active members Before politics, beneath it, wrap it, limit it, cooling it" ceases to exist. If representative democracy require agreement on such a background, tacit or otherwise, as a condition of political compromise and legislative action, and if democracy must produce legislation that recognizes the openness and contingency, what vulnerabilities that arise in their absence?

What mechanism supports this understanding and the circumstances which reduces the likelihood that the framework can flourish? We very much need a robust debate on these questions. The quality of our political future depends on how we see the right answer [ 13 ]. I still think that it is hard to imagine a society that is truly modern without liberal democracy and market economy.

A philosophical framework linking democracy and health

The only thing that might rival is China, but I have great doubts about the success of the Chinese model in the long term. What has changed is that I have to admit that the political system to continue not only advanced, but they also could be on their way to disintegration - this is a genuine problem in the United States. I am also attaching a greater importance for the country to function properly, which in my opinion is more difficult to make than democracy itself [ 14 ]. In popular usage, neo-liberalism is equated with market free radicals: Neo-liberalism is most often invoked in relation to the Third World, referring either to NAFTA as a scheme that increases the vulnerability of poor countries to changes in globalization or policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, through the financing package that is attached to a "restructuring" requirements, pull the chain every aspect of Third World existence, including political institutions and social formations.

While these references capture important effects of neo-liberalism, they also reduce neo-liberalism to a bundle of economic policies with the political and social consequences of unintentional: In addition, this reference does not capture the neo in neoliberalism, tends not to treat the contemporary phenomenon as little more than a revival of classical liberal political economy.

Finally, they obscure the special list of neo-liberalism in the First World, that is, the strong erosion of liberal democratic institutions and practices in places like the United States. My concern in this essay with negligible dimensions of neo-liberalism [ 15 ]. Thus, the future world order would in the set of liberal democracy with the mixing of socialism values.

In the liberal democracy side would face the challenge from amazing mixture ideology such as China and its alliance, Europe Union as multilateral state power and Sharia Community such as Muslims countries as the emerging power both politically and economically as the new challenge for the leading liberal democracy. So the next discussion in the field of world order apparently would be predominantly around of liberalism, Socialism and Islam. The discussion showed us some facts that: First, liberal democracy is still the champion in the era with some advances and obstacles.

The advances including the generic system of political and economics, and the obstacles including inability of privates and individuals to provide welfare in equal form. Second, liberal democracy has advance concept in providing human rights and freedoms but lack of common and interests of all the peoples. Third, the future of the world affairs would continue the domination of liberal democracy in new mix favored with other ideologies such as socialism and Islam.

Home Publications Conferences Register Contact. Guidelines Upcoming Special Issues. Research Article Open Access. June 30, Citation: New laws constrict the scope of what were previously private liberties. Rapidly changing laws make it difficult for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding. This may be an invitation for law-enforcement agencies to misuse power. The claimed continual complication of the law may be contrary to a claimed simple and eternal natural law —although there is no consensus on what this natural law is, even among advocates.

Supporters of democracy point to the complex bureaucracy and regulations that has occurred in dictatorships, like many of the former communist states. The bureaucracy in liberal democracies is often criticised for a claimed slowness and complexity of their decision-making. The term " red tape " is a synonym of slow bureaucratic functioning that hinders quick results in a liberal democracy.

By definition, modern liberal democracies allow for regular changes of government. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits to the electorate or to self-interested politicians before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits.

This criticism assumes that it is possible to make long term predictions for a society, something Karl Popper has criticised as historicism. Besides the regular review of governing entities, short-term focus in a democracy could also be the result of collective short-term thinking.

The Future of Liberal Democracy

For example, consider a campaign for policies aimed at reducing environmental damage while causing temporary increase in unemployment. However, this risk applies also to other political systems. Anarcho-capitalist Hans-Herman Hoppe explained short-termism of the democratic governments by the rational choice of currently ruling group to over exploit temporarily accessible resources, thus deriving maximal economic advantage to the members of this group.

He contrasted this with hereditary monarchy , in which a monarch has an interest in preserving the long-term capital value of his property i. The tyranny of the majority is the fear that a direct democratic government, reflecting the majority view, can take action that oppresses a particular minority. For instance, a minority holding wealth, property ownership or power see Federalist No. Theoretically, the majority is a majority of all citizens. If citizens are not compelled by law to vote, it is usually a majority of those who choose to vote. If such of group constitutes a minority, then it is possible that a minority could in theory oppress another minority in the name of the majority.

However, such an argument could apply to both direct democracy or representative democracy. In comparison to a direct democracy where every citizen is forced to vote, under liberal democracies the wealth and power is usually concentrated in the hands of a small privileged class who have significant power over the political process see inverted totalitarianism.

Several de facto dictatorships also have compulsory, but not "free and fair" voting in order to try to increase the legitimacy of the regime, such as North Korea. Proponents of democracy make a number of defenses concerning "tyranny of the majority". One is to argue that the presence of a constitution protecting the rights of all citizens in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the representatives separated by an election, or sometimes a referendum.

These requirements are often combined. The separation of powers into legislative branch , executive branch and judicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority which is still ethically questionable , but such a minority would be very small and as a practical matter it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.

Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly different shape on different issues. People often agree with the majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other issues. One's view may also change, thus the members of a majority may limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future themselves be in a minority.

A third common argument is that despite the risks majority rule is preferable to other systems and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. All the possible problems mentioned above can also occur in nondemocracies with the added problem that a minority can oppress the majority.

Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and mass murder by the government. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law , which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them. One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree.

This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.

Some think that political stability may be considered as excessive when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. On the other hand, this is more common in nondemocracies. One notable feature of liberal democracies is that their opponents those groups who wish to abolish liberal democracy rarely win elections.

Advocates use this as an argument to support their view that liberal democracy is inherently stable and can usually only be overthrown by external force, while opponents argue that the system is inherently stacked against them despite its claims to impartiality. In the past, it was feared that democracy could be easily exploited by leaders with dictatorial aspirations, who could get themselves elected into power. However, the actual number of liberal democracies that have elected dictators into power is low.

By definition, a liberal democracy implies that power is not concentrated. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a state in wartime , when a fast and unified response is necessary. The legislature usually must give consent before the start of an offensive military operation, although sometimes the executive can do this on its own while keeping the legislature informed. If the democracy is attacked, then no consent is usually required for defensive operations. The people may vote against a conscription army.

However, actual research shows that democracies are more likely to win wars than non-democracies. One explanation attributes this primarily to "the transparency of the polities , and the stability of their preferences, once determined, democracies are better able to cooperate with their partners in the conduct of wars".

Other research attributes this to superior mobilisation of resources or selection of wars that the democratic states have a high chance of winning. Stam and Reiter also note that the emphasis on individuality within democratic societies means that their soldiers fight with greater initiative and superior leadership.

1. Health care systems in liberal democracies / edited Ann Wall | National Library of Australia;
2. Body In A Hotel Room.
3. Sommer der Sehnsucht (Baccara) (German Edition).
4. Democracy and health;
5. Health Care Systems In Liberal Democracies.
6. Whose Money Is It Anyway?: A Biblical Guide to Using Gods Wealth.

The leaders in nondemocracies may respond violently to any perceived criticisms or disobedience. This may make the soldiers and officers afraid to raise any objections or do anything without explicit authorisation. The lack of initiative may be particularly detrimental in modern warfare. Enemy soldiers may more easily surrender to democracies since they can expect comparatively good treatment. A democratic system may provide better information for policy decisions. Undesirable information may more easily be ignored in dictatorships, even if this undesirable or contrarian information provides early warning of problems.

Anders Chydenius put forward the argument for freedom of the press for this reason in Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption: The Indian Right to Information Act "has already engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power equations completely". Several studies [ citation needed ] have concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom , meaning countries transitioning from autocratic governance to democracy.

Nations with strong autocratic governments and governments that allow for more political freedom experience less terrorism. Statistically, more democracy correlates with a higher gross domestic product GDP per capita. However, there is disagreement regarding how much credit the democratic system can take for this. One observation is that democracy became widespread only after the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of capitalism. On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution started in England which was one of the most democratic nations for its time within its own borders, but this democracy was very limited and did not apply to the colonies which contributed significantly to the wealth.

Several statistical studies support the theory that a higher degree of economic freedom, as measured with one the several Indices of Economic Freedom which have been used in numerous studies, [51] increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty and causes democratisation. This is a statistical tendency and there are individual exceptions like Mali, which is ranked as "Free" by Freedom House , but is a Least Developed Country , or Qatar, which has arguably the highest GDP per capita in the world, but has never been democratic.

There are also other studies suggesting that more democracy increases economic freedom, although a few find no or even a small negative effect. However, this is a misunderstanding as the studies indicate effect on economic growth and thus that future GDP per capita will be higher with higher economic freedom. Also according to the index, Canada and Sweden are among the world's nations with the highest economic freedom rankings, due to factors such as strong rule of law , strong property rights and few restrictions against free trade.

Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom and other methods used does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some other definition. Some argue that economic growth due to its empowerment of citizens will ensure a transition to democracy in countries such as Cuba. However, other dispute this and even if economic growth has caused democratisation in the past, it may not do so in the future. Dictators may now have learned how to have economic growth without this causing more political freedom.

A high degree of oil or mineral exports is strongly associated with nondemocratic rule. This effect applies worldwide and not only to the Middle East. Dictators who have this form of wealth can spend more on their security apparatus and provide benefits which lessen public unrest. Also, such wealth is not followed by the social and cultural changes that may transform societies with ordinary economic growth. A meta-analysis found that democracy has no direct effect on economic growth.

However, it has strong and significant indirect effects which contribute to growth. Democracy is associated with higher human capital accumulation, lower inflation , lower political instability and higher economic freedom. There is also some evidence that it is associated with larger governments and more restrictions on international trade. Of the eighty worst financial catastrophes during the last four decades, only five were in democracies. Similarly, poor democracies are half likely as nondemocracies to experience a 10 percent decline in GDP per capita over the course of a single year.

A prominent economist, Amartya Sen , has noted that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine. Looking at the volume of refugee flows for the last twenty years, the first eighty-seven cases occurred in autocracies. Democracy correlates with a higher score on the Human Development Index and a lower score on the human poverty index. Democracies have the potential to put in place better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, access to drinking water and better health care than dictatorships.

This is not due to higher levels of foreign assistance or spending a larger percentage of GDP on health and education, as instead the available resources are managed better. Several health indicators life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per capita, rise of the public sector or income inequality. In the post-communist nations, after an initial decline those that are the most democratic have achieved the greatest gains in life expectancy. Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory.

More recent research has extended the theory and finds that democracies have few militarized interstate disputes causing less than 1, battle deaths with one another, that those militarized interstate disputes that have occurred between democracies have caused few deaths and that democracies have few civil wars. American professor Rudolph Rummel claimed that democratic nations have much less democide or murder by the government. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

For similarly-named political parties, see Liberal Democrats. History of liberalism Contributions to liberal theory. Democratic capitalism Liberal bias in academia Regressive left. This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. August Learn how and when to remove this template message. Majority rule and Tyranny of the majority. The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate. January Learn how and when to remove this template message. Freedom of speech portal Liberalism portal. Classical liberalism Constitutional liberalism Democratic ideals Economic liberalism Elective rights History of democracy Illiberal democracy Index of politics articles Jeffersonian democracy Libertarianism Neoliberalism Republicanism Social democracy Social liberalism. Magna Carta in the 17th century".