Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Majority rule isn't new

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 12:19:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is no power on Earth mightier than that of the majority, and all suffering and rebellion in history has risen from the injustices of the sentiments thereof. So when you claim that now the people are winning, I must ask of what they ever lost. Did the monarch not stay in power because his army obeyed, and the peasants protested not the system but their individual circumstances? Only when the system itself was targeted by a reformist populous, did any political movement take place. Did the Pope not derive his power from the millions of Christian adherents who gave it to him?

Democracy is not revolutionary. Democracy is the revelation of the power that always was. So we must rid ourselves of the idea that our "fellow citizens" are our liberators - they are not. The majority determines the law, customs, morality, justice and all that which is normal. What about the minority? The majority sets the canons of compassion and justification. What about the minority? We define oppression as the diminution of one's authority in the direction and operation of his own life, and each revolutionary that sought to topple or disown his government acted with that sentiment in mind. So when we transfer this diminutive power from a monarch to a mass of people, does the oppression not still exist?

Voting is a good conduit for greater self-determination pro tempore, but by no means should we become complacent and think that this is the final solution.
"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
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 12:37:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Voting is a far more efficient solution than rebellions and uprising against a monarch that contested the voice of the majority.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 5:22:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 12:19:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no power on Earth mightier than that of the majority,

Alright. You have two children on your team, and I'll have a loaded M16 rifle, and we'll see who has more "power".
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 5:29:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Someone tell me what pro tempore means, though. 000ike's always throwing in these made up words into what he writes.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 5:39:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 5:29:54 PM, benevolent wrote:
Someone tell me what pro tempore means, though. 000ike's always throwing in these made up words into what he writes.

It's Latin for "for the time being." He's saying democracy is a flawed system but remains our best available option for now.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 5:51:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I thought the dude was preaching that we should add argument to our voting or something...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 6:57:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 5:22:38 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/30/2013 12:19:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no power on Earth mightier than that of the majority,

Alright. You have two children on your team, and I'll have a loaded M16 rifle, and we'll see who has more "power".

Of course the claim shouldn't be taken so strictly. For the point I was trying to make still stands.

If the majority wasn't always in power, deciding to give authority to monarchs, and deciding when it was tired of the monarch (keeping in mind that the law enforcers and their friends and families are a part of said majority), then how did the autocrats claiming God-sanctioned rule and their armed followers ever lose power? Did they just voluntarily give it away?
"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
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 7:00:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ok I agree that the majority has always been in power, but Democracy is the ultimate civilization of that inevitability.