Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

When will Democracy die?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:28:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What I really dislike about society is that whenever the majority of people are satisfied, the status quo is upheld. Whenever the majority of people agree on something, they, for some reason, assume it must be true. Whenever the majority acts, there is nothing that can challenge it.

Tyranny was not erased; it was merely transferred to a subjugated minority. And it is even more difficult to tear down Democracy than it was to tear down the Monarchies because this time, the oppressed lack numbers,…so ultimately, they're powerless. Laws don't change because a minority fights and wins. Laws change because the majority feels pity. In the end, the American Revolution was an anticlimactic lateral move. Now, those who we praise in history, managed to concoct an even trickier and more sinister oppressive system.

Thoughts?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:30:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not really news.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:33:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyway: I very much agree.

However, in a word of defense of our founders, they did take measures to prevent the tyrannical rule of the majority. Whether that worked is another story...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:39:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
Now, those who we praise in history, managed to concoct an even trickier and more sinister oppressive system.

oh, shush..

They Tried to temper Democracy a little bit..

They made SUPER-Laws in the constitution which are supposed to protect the minority and take a Super-majority to change :P

they understood that Democracy can be tyranny.. it's just Less likely to be Tyranny.. and even less so when you make Good Super-Laws in the first place.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:43:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:39:40 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/10/2012 9:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
Now, those who we praise in history, managed to concoct an even trickier and more sinister oppressive system.

oh, shush..

They Tried to temper Democracy a little bit..

They made SUPER-Laws in the constitution which are supposed to protect the minority and take a Super-majority to change :P

they understood that Democracy can be tyranny.. it's just Less likely to be Tyranny.. and even less so when you make Good Super-Laws in the first place.

No, They didn't temper Democracy because they thought it could be tyrannical. They tempered it because they distrusted the people. The electoral college is proof enough....also the fact that people couldn't elect senators until the Progressives changed that.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:47:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
What I really dislike about society is that whenever the majority of people are satisfied, the status quo is upheld. Whenever the majority of people agree on something, they, for some reason, assume it must be true. Whenever the majority acts, there is nothing that can challenge it.

Tyranny was not erased; it was merely transferred to a subjugated minority. And it is even more difficult to tear down Democracy than it was to tear down the Monarchies because this time, the oppressed lack numbers,…so ultimately, they're powerless. Laws don't change because a minority fights and wins. Laws change because the majority feels pity. In the end, the American Revolution was an anticlimactic lateral move. Now, those who we praise in history, managed to concoct an even trickier and more sinister oppressive system.

Thoughts?

Damn, we..agree! Ike, I have to say I appreciate your insight, I really do. If you're willing to accept it, I offer my apologies for being such a d1ck to you in the past, although I'd be lying if I didn't say I plan to troll you whenever I can.

Democracy is unlikely to be de-legitimatized in our lifetimes. Even now, with all the negative effects of democracy, the word "democratic" is considered inherently good. To call a policy "un democratic" is, in the eyes of many people, the worst thing you can say. There would have to be a widespread recognition of the failings of the democratic system, and considering that we live in a world in which democratic governments spy on, kill, and steal from their own citizens and no one cares, that's something unlikely to happen for at least a century.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:53:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:43:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/10/2012 9:39:40 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/10/2012 9:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
Now, those who we praise in history, managed to concoct an even trickier and more sinister oppressive system.

oh, shush..

They Tried to temper Democracy a little bit..

They made SUPER-Laws in the constitution which are supposed to protect the minority and take a Super-majority to change :P

they understood that Democracy can be tyranny.. it's just Less likely to be Tyranny.. and even less so when you make Good Super-Laws in the first place.

No, They didn't temper Democracy because they thought it could be tyrannical. They tempered it because they distrusted the people.

Yes, People, majorities..

The electoral college is proof enough....also the fact that people couldn't elect senators until the Progressives changed that.

yeah, they figured Elected people would be smarter and more Far-looking than Average people... and figured that the Elected of the Elected would be even moreso.

I would say it was perhaps a little Idealistic of a notion.. but probably worked to some degree.

I too worry about the Tendency for Democracy to make things the Will of the Stupid.

For example... I hear California (that Most Purely-democratic state) has been having (perennial) a hard time balancing it's budget :/
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:07:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think this somewhat sidesteps the issue. I've said it before, democracy is not inherently bad. It always depends on the first-order operation of the system. Every State for instance operates in a first-order system of aggression and coercion. This means that regardless of whether or not the second-order system within it is democratic or un-democractic, it's still sh1t. If the system is first-order voluntaristic however, then it's democratic only insofar as people agreed to be a part of the system in the first place.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:24:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
What I really dislike about society is that whenever the majority of people are satisfied, the status quo is upheld. Whenever the majority of people agree on something, they, for some reason, assume it must be true. Whenever the majority acts, there is nothing that can challenge it.

On the contrary, would you rather have a governmental system in which the majority does not have power, but instead prescribes it to the minority? I really don't see you counter-offer here.

Furthermore, why do you suppose that if the majority of a country supports something, then they ought to not always get their way, because it seems as if that is what you are implying. Also, if you are going to come up with the "what if the majority decides to lynch blacks" argument, then you might note that morality is ever changing and the morality of different culture's change over time.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:34:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:24:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/10/2012 9:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
What I really dislike about society is that whenever the majority of people are satisfied, the status quo is upheld. Whenever the majority of people agree on something, they, for some reason, assume it must be true. Whenever the majority acts, there is nothing that can challenge it.

On the contrary, would you rather have a governmental system in which the majority does not have power, but instead prescribes it to the minority? I really don't see you counter-offer here.

The identity of the oppressor doesn't change the nature of the oppression.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:36:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:34:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/10/2012 10:24:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/10/2012 9:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
What I really dislike about society is that whenever the majority of people are satisfied, the status quo is upheld. Whenever the majority of people agree on something, they, for some reason, assume it must be true. Whenever the majority acts, there is nothing that can challenge it.

On the contrary, would you rather have a governmental system in which the majority does not have power, but instead prescribes it to the minority? I really don't see you counter-offer here.

The identity of the oppressor doesn't change the nature of the oppression.

I know, but that's not what I was saying. 000ike stated that he did not like majoritarian rule quite clearly in the OP, and with a lack of a counter-offer by him, it's safe to say that he would at least prefer minority rule to a degree over or equal to majoritarian.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Aayu
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 11:10:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
One can ramble on and on and on on each one of the possible political system ever proposed since the dawn of time. The underlying principle would remain that when there are hordes of different personalities to rule under a single umbrella, there would be disagreements among the people. There would be unilaterally be thousands of loopholes in every system once you set out to look for them.

The problem is not the system, it's the attitude, something that is difficult to regulate. I would contend that Democracy is the best system there can be, because it respects individualism. Individuals all across the spectrum of personalities, all classes, all religions, every human being.

At 6/10/2012 9:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
What I really dislike about society is that whenever the majority of people are satisfied, the status quo is upheld. Whenever the majority of people agree on something, they, for some reason, assume it must be true.

Obviously if the majority people agree on it, they'd assume it's true. That is the very nature of agreeing on things.

Whenever the majority acts, there is nothing that can challenge it.

Whenever the majority acts, there is another sect of people that almost always challenges it. The people use the means available to them to convince the public about the 'truth' of their sentiment. Gaining support for their cause lies almost entirely on their usage of the sources at their disposal. You have to follow the rules if you play the game.

Tyranny was not erased; it was merely transferred to a subjugated minority. And it is even more difficult to tear down Democracy than it was to tear down the Monarchies because this time, the oppressed lack numbers,…so ultimately, they're powerless. Laws don't change because a minority fights and wins. Laws change because the majority feels pity. In the end, the American Revolution was an anticlimactic lateral move. Now, those who we praise in history, managed to concoct an even trickier and more sinister oppressive system.

Thoughts?

Define oppressed.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 11:13:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This reminds me of a Mises quote:

"There is virtually only one factor that has the power to make people unfree - tyrannical public opinion. The struggle for freedom is ultimately not resistance to autocrats or oligarchs but resistance to the despotism of public opinion. It is not the struggle of the many against the few but of minorities - sometimes of a minority of but one man - against the majority. The worst and most dangerous form of absolutist rule is that of an intolerant majority. Such is the conclusion arrived at by Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill"
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Aayu
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 11:50:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 11:16:35 AM, drafterman wrote:
Was Democracy, true Democracy, every really alive?

Do you think if democracy, true democracy, was alive, it would be ideal?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 12:09:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:36:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/10/2012 10:34:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/10/2012 10:24:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/10/2012 9:28:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
What I really dislike about society is that whenever the majority of people are satisfied, the status quo is upheld. Whenever the majority of people agree on something, they, for some reason, assume it must be true. Whenever the majority acts, there is nothing that can challenge it.

On the contrary, would you rather have a governmental system in which the majority does not have power, but instead prescribes it to the minority? I really don't see you counter-offer here.

The identity of the oppressor doesn't change the nature of the oppression.

I know, but that's not what I was saying. 000ike stated that he did not like majoritarian rule quite clearly in the OP, and with a lack of a counter-offer by him, it's safe to say that he would at least prefer minority rule to a degree over or equal to majoritarian.

Why do you assume that?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.