Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The worst form of Tyranny?

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:37:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This was brought up by another thread, where it was said that Tyranny of the Majority is the worst form.

I would argue that Tyranny from a Minority is far worse as it is easier and more likely to occur, has a greater depth of tyranny, and effects a greater number of oppressed people.

Thoughts?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:45:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:37:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This was brought up by another thread, where it was said that Tyranny of the Majority is the worst form.

I would argue that Tyranny from a Minority is far worse as it is easier and more likely to occur, has a greater depth of tyranny, and effects a greater number of oppressed people.

Thoughts?

Tyranny from a minority already exists as a military dictatorship.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 6:10:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.

Firstly, it is important to understand that "minority" in this context is not a minority group but simply "not the majority."

Secondly, slavery was oppression by a minority that was rectified by the majority. Then you have other cases of oppression by various minorities, such as the Nazi, North Korea, and every military dictatorship. I'll take the less common risk of the type of oppression that the civil rights faced over the more common oppression that is done by various dictators.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 7:17:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 6:10:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.

Firstly, it is important to understand that "minority" in this context is not a minority group but simply "not the majority."

Yes. And? Tyranny of the majority is still far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. If 51% of the population votes to kill 49%, damn straight I'm defending the 49%.

Secondly, slavery was oppression by a minority that was rectified by the majority. Then you have other cases of oppression by various minorities, such as the Nazi, North Korea, and every military dictatorship. I'll take the less common risk of the type of oppression that the civil rights faced over the more common oppression that is done by various dictators.

No! it wasn't. Slavery and segregation especially were rectified by the actions of a few and by government action. A majority of people supported segregation - it was the minority and the Supreme Court (in the US) - that did away with it.

Hitler was democratically elected.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 7:57:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 7:17:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:10:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.

Firstly, it is important to understand that "minority" in this context is not a minority group but simply "not the majority."

Yes. And? Tyranny of the majority is still far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. If 51% of the population votes to kill 49%, damn straight I'm defending the 49%.

I was clarifying because you were switching between the two. It is actually easier to undo tyranny of majority because you only need to change the minds of a few people to swing the opinions. The 51% killing the 49% is a fun imaginary situation, but I presume you would also be against the 5% taking up as and slaughtering the 95%. History has shown that is far more likely.

The closest that we see of this happening was Nazi Germany, which was a minority imposing on another minority.


Secondly, slavery was oppression by a minority that was rectified by the majority. Then you have other cases of oppression by various minorities, such as the Nazi, North Korea, and every military dictatorship. I'll take the less common risk of the type of oppression that the civil rights faced over the more common oppression that is done by various dictators.

No! it wasn't. Slavery and segregation especially were rectified by the actions of a few and by government action. A majority of people supported segregation - it was the minority and the Supreme Court (in the US) - that did away with it.

Hitler was democratically elected.

Lincoln won the 1860 election on the grounds of ending slavery. All of the presidential debates leading to the election were focused around slavery. It was a huge topic for the public and the single largest issue.

Also, hitter was turned down by the people in 1932 (only 36% of the vote) and was APPOINTED chancellor in 1933. He then won a circus election that was rip with fraud (and things like Jews can't vote and massive voter intimidation). This was also after he had taken all power already, so the majority did not give the power.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:12:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 4:37:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This was brought up by another thread, where it was said that Tyranny of the Majority is the worst form.

I would argue that Tyranny from a Minority is far worse as it is easier and more likely to occur, has a greater depth of tyranny, and effects a greater number of oppressed people.

Thoughts?

When I think of tyranny by the majority, I think of the French revolution, which I have complicated feelings about. When I think about tyranny by the minority, I think of Syria, the Assad government, and the horrible things that are going on there.

I think it's hard to say, in relative terms, which is worse. The "losses" are of a different kind, but I think that whether one is worse than the other has more to do with decisions made by those in a position to abuse others, rather than whether power is abused by a majority or minority of the people.
Tsar of DDO
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:21:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 7:57:40 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 7:17:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:10:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.

Firstly, it is important to understand that "minority" in this context is not a minority group but simply "not the majority."

Yes. And? Tyranny of the majority is still far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. If 51% of the population votes to kill 49%, damn straight I'm defending the 49%.

I was clarifying because you were switching between the two. It is actually easier to undo tyranny of majority because you only need to change the minds of a few people to swing the opinions. The 51% killing the 49% is a fun imaginary situation, but I presume you would also be against the 5% taking up as and slaughtering the 95%. History has shown that is far more likely.

I actually wasn't. When I said "minorities are champions of tolerance," I literally meant numeric minorities in democratic societies.


The closest that we see of this happening was Nazi Germany, which was a minority imposing on another minority.


Secondly, slavery was oppression by a minority that was rectified by the majority. Then you have other cases of oppression by various minorities, such as the Nazi, North Korea, and every military dictatorship. I'll take the less common risk of the type of oppression that the civil rights faced over the more common oppression that is done by various dictators.

No! it wasn't. Slavery and segregation especially were rectified by the actions of a few and by government action. A majority of people supported segregation - it was the minority and the Supreme Court (in the US) - that did away with it.

Hitler was democratically elected.

Lincoln won the 1860 election on the grounds of ending slavery. All of the presidential debates leading to the election were focused around slavery. It was a huge topic for the public and the single largest issue.

Lincoln was powerless to end slavery once the South seceded. Nor does one thing here address segregation.

Also, hitter was turned down by the people in 1932 (only 36% of the vote) and was APPOINTED chancellor in 1933. He then won a circus election that was rip with fraud (and things like Jews can't vote and massive voter intimidation). This was also after he had taken all power already, so the majority did not give the power.

I don't know where you've heard this. Hitler won a free democratic election with a plurality of the vote. No one got a majority.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:52:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:21:32 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 7:57:40 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 7:17:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:10:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.

Firstly, it is important to understand that "minority" in this context is not a minority group but simply "not the majority."

Yes. And? Tyranny of the majority is still far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. If 51% of the population votes to kill 49%, damn straight I'm defending the 49%.

I was clarifying because you were switching between the two. It is actually easier to undo tyranny of majority because you only need to change the minds of a few people to swing the opinions. The 51% killing the 49% is a fun imaginary situation, but I presume you would also be against the 5% taking up as and slaughtering the 95%. History has shown that is far more likely.

I actually wasn't. When I said "minorities are champions of tolerance," I literally meant numeric minorities in democratic societies.

I just presumed because this way makes no sense. You are suggesting that when republicans were the majority and democrats were the minority in the 80's that democrats were more tolerant. Then when they took over in 92' they spontaneously became less tolerant and the republicans (now a minority) spontaneously became more tolerant. Then it flopped back in the 2000's with Bush, and then back again in 2008 with Obama? Are you thinking that republicans are more tolerant towards blacks and hispanics right now?



The closest that we see of this happening was Nazi Germany, which was a minority imposing on another minority.


Secondly, slavery was oppression by a minority that was rectified by the majority. Then you have other cases of oppression by various minorities, such as the Nazi, North Korea, and every military dictatorship. I'll take the less common risk of the type of oppression that the civil rights faced over the more common oppression that is done by various dictators.

No! it wasn't. Slavery and segregation especially were rectified by the actions of a few and by government action. A majority of people supported segregation - it was the minority and the Supreme Court (in the US) - that did away with it.

Hitler was democratically elected.

Lincoln won the 1860 election on the grounds of ending slavery. All of the presidential debates leading to the election were focused around slavery. It was a huge topic for the public and the single largest issue.

Lincoln was powerless to end slavery once the South seceded. Nor does one thing here address segregation.

The secession of the south was not the will of the majority, but the will of a minority that did not like the will of the majority. Case in point.


Also, hitter was turned down by the people in 1932 (only 36% of the vote) and was APPOINTED chancellor in 1933. He then won a circus election that was rip with fraud (and things like Jews can't vote and massive voter intimidation). This was also after he had taken all power already, so the majority did not give the power.

I don't know where you've heard this. Hitler won a free democratic election with a plurality of the vote. No one got a majority.

I heard it from reality. Hitler LOST the 1932 presidential election, gainning 36% of the vote (losing to Hindenburg with 53% of the vote). The NAZI party (not Hitler) took the most seats in the federal election (basically for their "congress") in 1933.

The Communists (the 3rd largest represented party) were banned (not by public vote), and their seats voided (to help increase the power of the Nazi party). Also, when voting on the Enabling act (which would give him the power to create laws without the public, or the publicly elected president having any power or input), the Nazi party had arrested many members of the social democrat party to keep them from voting against it. None of this EVER had a majority support from the people.

The next election (Nov 1933), no non-Nazis were allowed on the ballots and no write-ins were allowed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.

I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:21:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Darn you, I was going to ask for examples of the 51% oppressing the 49% and show how for nearly every case, it was solved with the spread of ideas rather than bloody rebellions and wars.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:26:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:21:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Darn you, I was going to ask for examples of the 51% oppressing the 49% and show how for nearly every case, it was solved with the spread of ideas rather than bloody rebellions and wars.

Random question: how would you classify Nazi Germany?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:31:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:26:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:21:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Darn you, I was going to ask for examples of the 51% oppressing the 49% and show how for nearly every case, it was solved with the spread of ideas rather than bloody rebellions and wars.

Random question: how would you classify Nazi Germany?

From what I previously said, as a minority lead tyranny. They never achieved 50%+1 support and uses methods that the majority was not involved in to take away the choice for something else. After that point, it cannot no longer be a democratic majority because the freedom of choice was striped (even though you could argue that they got 97% of the vote in Nov 1933, since the choices were Nazi, Nazi, or Nazi).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:33:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:52:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:21:32 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 7:57:40 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 7:17:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:10:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.

Firstly, it is important to understand that "minority" in this context is not a minority group but simply "not the majority."

Yes. And? Tyranny of the majority is still far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. If 51% of the population votes to kill 49%, damn straight I'm defending the 49%.

I was clarifying because you were switching between the two. It is actually easier to undo tyranny of majority because you only need to change the minds of a few people to swing the opinions. The 51% killing the 49% is a fun imaginary situation, but I presume you would also be against the 5% taking up as and slaughtering the 95%. History has shown that is far more likely.

I actually wasn't. When I said "minorities are champions of tolerance," I literally meant numeric minorities in democratic societies.

I just presumed because this way makes no sense. You are suggesting that when republicans were the majority and democrats were the minority in the 80's that democrats were more tolerant. Then when they took over in 92' they spontaneously became less tolerant and the republicans (now a minority) spontaneously became more tolerant. Then it flopped back in the 2000's with Bush, and then back again in 2008 with Obama? Are you thinking that republicans are more tolerant towards blacks and hispanics right now?

That's not how majority/minority works. Not really. Americans are fairly consistent about a 40/20/40 with minor variations.



The closest that we see of this happening was Nazi Germany, which was a minority imposing on another minority.


Secondly, slavery was oppression by a minority that was rectified by the majority. Then you have other cases of oppression by various minorities, such as the Nazi, North Korea, and every military dictatorship. I'll take the less common risk of the type of oppression that the civil rights faced over the more common oppression that is done by various dictators.

No! it wasn't. Slavery and segregation especially were rectified by the actions of a few and by government action. A majority of people supported segregation - it was the minority and the Supreme Court (in the US) - that did away with it.

Hitler was democratically elected.

Lincoln won the 1860 election on the grounds of ending slavery. All of the presidential debates leading to the election were focused around slavery. It was a huge topic for the public and the single largest issue.

Lincoln was powerless to end slavery once the South seceded. Nor does one thing here address segregation.

The secession of the south was not the will of the majority, but the will of a minority that did not like the will of the majority. Case in point.

Funny. The majority definitely didn't want much to do with blacks. The majority didn't even favor abolishing slavery! Abolitionists were a minority; non-racists were a tiny minority.


Also, hitter was turned down by the people in 1932 (only 36% of the vote) and was APPOINTED chancellor in 1933. He then won a circus election that was rip with fraud (and things like Jews can't vote and massive voter intimidation). This was also after he had taken all power already, so the majority did not give the power.

I don't know where you've heard this. Hitler won a free democratic election with a plurality of the vote. No one got a majority.

I heard it from reality. Hitler LOST the 1932 presidential election, gainning 36% of the vote (losing to Hindenburg with 53% of the vote). The NAZI party (not Hitler) took the most seats in the federal election (basically for their "congress") in 1933.

The Communists (the 3rd largest represented party) were banned (not by public vote), and their seats voided (to help increase the power of the Nazi party). Also, when voting on the Enabling act (which would give him the power to create laws without the public, or the publicly elected president having any power or input), the Nazi party had arrested many members of the social democrat party to keep them from voting against it. None of this EVER had a majority support from the people.

The next election (Nov 1933), no non-Nazis were allowed on the ballots and no write-ins were allowed.

Now this here is interesting, because I've studied Germany in political science, and nowhere was it said that non-Nazis were prohibited from the ballot.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:33:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:31:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:26:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:21:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Darn you, I was going to ask for examples of the 51% oppressing the 49% and show how for nearly every case, it was solved with the spread of ideas rather than bloody rebellions and wars.

Random question: how would you classify Nazi Germany?

From what I previously said, as a minority lead tyranny. They never achieved 50%+1 support and uses methods that the majority was not involved in to take away the choice for something else. After that point, it cannot no longer be a democratic majority because the freedom of choice was striped (even though you could argue that they got 97% of the vote in Nov 1933, since the choices were Nazi, Nazi, or Nazi).

Good points.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:34:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Citizens are only free to spread the "right" ideas without tyranny of the majority?

You don't seriously think "tyranny of the majority" entails letting minorities have rights, do you?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:40:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When a minority oppresses a majority, if situations don't improve, the majority will eventually revolt.

When a majority oppresses a minority, what recourse does the minority have? Literally none.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:46:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:34:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Citizens are only free to spread the "right" ideas without tyranny of the majority?

You don't seriously think "tyranny of the majority" entails letting minorities have rights, do you?

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The point is that democracy often leads to positive change, while tyranny of the minority doesn't. The push for marriage equality, for example, is driven by the fact that the "majority" agrees with it, whereas 50 years ago it didn't. That doesn't mean I think a majority has the right to do whatever it wants, just that pure democracy is preferable to dictatorship.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:49:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:40:26 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
When a minority oppresses a majority, if situations don't improve, the majority will eventually revolt.

When a majority oppresses a minority, what recourse does the minority have? Literally none.

This is an overly-simplistic view. History has shown us that tyrants are perfectly capable of staying in power even as their citizens starve to death. It has also shown us that effecting positive change through an "uprising" is very difficult to achieve.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:09:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:33:10 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:52:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:21:32 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 7:57:40 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 7:17:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:10:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.

Firstly, it is important to understand that "minority" in this context is not a minority group but simply "not the majority."

Yes. And? Tyranny of the majority is still far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. If 51% of the population votes to kill 49%, damn straight I'm defending the 49%.

I was clarifying because you were switching between the two. It is actually easier to undo tyranny of majority because you only need to change the minds of a few people to swing the opinions. The 51% killing the 49% is a fun imaginary situation, but I presume you would also be against the 5% taking up as and slaughtering the 95%. History has shown that is far more likely.

I actually wasn't. When I said "minorities are champions of tolerance," I literally meant numeric minorities in democratic societies.

I just presumed because this way makes no sense. You are suggesting that when republicans were the majority and democrats were the minority in the 80's that democrats were more tolerant. Then when they took over in 92' they spontaneously became less tolerant and the republicans (now a minority) spontaneously became more tolerant. Then it flopped back in the 2000's with Bush, and then back again in 2008 with Obama? Are you thinking that republicans are more tolerant towards blacks and hispanics right now?

That's not how majority/minority works. Not really. Americans are fairly consistent about a 40/20/40 with minor variations.

So there was never the dreaded 51% that you're afraid of? Okay.




The closest that we see of this happening was Nazi Germany, which was a minority imposing on another minority.


Secondly, slavery was oppression by a minority that was rectified by the majority. Then you have other cases of oppression by various minorities, such as the Nazi, North Korea, and every military dictatorship. I'll take the less common risk of the type of oppression that the civil rights faced over the more common oppression that is done by various dictators.

No! it wasn't. Slavery and segregation especially were rectified by the actions of a few and by government action. A majority of people supported segregation - it was the minority and the Supreme Court (in the US) - that did away with it.

Hitler was democratically elected.

Lincoln won the 1860 election on the grounds of ending slavery. All of the presidential debates leading to the election were focused around slavery. It was a huge topic for the public and the single largest issue.

Lincoln was powerless to end slavery once the South seceded. Nor does one thing here address segregation.

The secession of the south was not the will of the majority, but the will of a minority that did not like the will of the majority. Case in point.

Funny. The majority definitely didn't want much to do with blacks. The majority didn't even favor abolishing slavery! Abolitionists were a minority; non-racists were a tiny minority.

Here is the 1860 republican platform

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

"we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic"

" the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country."

It was also a key issue in their 1856 platform

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

You should also note that Lincoln did not only win, but he did so not even being able to be voted for in 10 states (guess what side of the Mason Dixie line those states were on).



Also, hitter was turned down by the people in 1932 (only 36% of the vote) and was APPOINTED chancellor in 1933. He then won a circus election that was rip with fraud (and things like Jews can't vote and massive voter intimidation). This was also after he had taken all power already, so the majority did not give the power.

I don't know where you've heard this. Hitler won a free democratic election with a plurality of the vote. No one got a majority.

I heard it from reality. Hitler LOST the 1932 presidential election, gainning 36% of the vote (losing to Hindenburg with 53% of the vote). The NAZI party (not Hitler) took the most seats in the federal election (basically for their "congress") in 1933.

The Communists (the 3rd largest represented party) were banned (not by public vote), and their seats voided (to help increase the power of the Nazi party). Also, when voting on the Enabling act (which would give him the power to create laws without the public, or the publicly elected president having any power or input), the Nazi party had arrested many members of the social democrat party to keep them from voting against it. None of this EVER had a majority support from the people.

The next election (Nov 1933), no non-Nazis were allowed on the ballots and no write-ins were allowed.

Now this here is interesting, because I've studied Germany in political science, and nowhere was it said that non-Nazis were prohibited from the ballot.

All other political parties were abolished in 1933

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It only took them a few months to remove all other parties. Also, (I know this is not something that you argued, but it has been argued before so I'm addressing it now) many people support a constitution for the very purpose of preventing "tyranny of a majority" however Germany had a constitution at the time and it was simply bypassed (Though I would argue that the Nazi were not a case of a majority, but it just shows that a constitution would not be able to stop it regardless).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 12:47:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:40:26 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
When a minority oppresses a majority, if situations don't improve, the majority will eventually revolt.

Maybe, in a perfect world. Maybe not.

When a majority oppresses a minority, what recourse does the minority have? Literally none.

Escape, or face what horror the majority may visit upon them.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:11:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was thinking about this as I was drifting off to sleep, and I thought I might share it before I went to sleep.

The concept of tyranny is very broad. It more or less means a state of being ruled by cruel or oppressive ways, and I say that to say this: intellectual tyranny is probably the worst kind.

When we're talking about tyranny on a real-world level (like, one group of some size oppressing another group or groups of some size), we're not denying the truth of the oppression. We're just saying that there is 'oppression' and there may or may not be a recourse for 'the oppressed' in this life, but there is at least the intellectual acknowledgement that there is a moral difference that the exercise of power imparts: it divides oppressor and oppressed.

But, when we're talking about tyranny on an intellectual level, (like, one regime by which truth was divided from falsehood), we're talking about intellectual oppression, that is to say, oppression of certain ideas and notions, rather than oppression of "persons" or "groups." It's hard to meaningfully compare the oppression of ideas to the oppression of people without sounding inhuman, but in the latter truth is not necessarily sacrificed whereas in the former it very well may be where the method of delineating truth from falsehood was inconsistent with objective reality.

I know that's very abstract, so I'll try to make it less so:

Suppose you have a particular set of beliefs about how the world should be. These are called normative beliefs, because they are distinguished from beliefs about what 'is objectively the case', which are called positive beliefs. But, suppose that your normative beliefs directly contradicted your positive beliefs, such that your understanding of the world as it is was blighted by what you think ought to be the case. Basically, the outcome is that one lies to himself where and to the extent that he cannot see the world as it is for the world's being obscured by what he would like it to be. That's one kind of intellectual tyranny.

An externally imposed kind of intellectual tyranny would look something like socially enforced political correctness, in some cases. Think about Umbridge, in the 5th Harry Potter book. What was politically correct at the time was to deny that Voldemort was back, that he posed a threat and to steadfastly maintain the fiction that Voldemort posed no threat to the wizarding world. The "method" by which "truth" was delineated from falsehood, in that case, was consistency with the party line. So, Harry was a 'liar' by the official standard, even though we all knew, as readers, that anything but was the case.

That latter kind of tyranny -externally imposed intellectual tyranny- seems to me to be the worst kind, because it denies truth and makes victims of those who speak that which is true. It's intellectual tyranny because it defines the realm of permissible thought within the parameters of what some individual or group 'wants' to be the case, rather than what 'is' the case, and in so doing denies the possibility of objective, external reality.

So, when Umbridge makes Harry write with the quill that uses his own blood, what she is doing is perhaps most dangerous not because of 'what' she did but because of 'why' she did it. Umbridge's evil was analogous to that of Eichmann; incredibly banal. It was not the kind of evil that arose from high minded malevolence or elaborate plotting, but of a resolute commitment to a set of ideals that both individuals (again, Umbridge and Eichmann) deemed as virtuous. That they were doing horrible things in the name of those "virtues" was immaterial to them, because what was 'right' had no bearing on the facts of the situations they both exercised power in. Rather, they both ignored objective reality, lied to themselves and "dug their heels" into the set of practices which the regimes under which they operated deemed to be acceptable, and so which they themselves also deemed acceptable. So, to relate that back to tyranny; the worst kind of tyranny is externally imposed intellectual tyranny which is imposed by a commitment to a specific set of ideals deemed to be virtuous.
Tsar of DDO
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:21:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:46:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:34:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Citizens are only free to spread the "right" ideas without tyranny of the majority?

You don't seriously think "tyranny of the majority" entails letting minorities have rights, do you?

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The point is that democracy often leads to positive change, while tyranny of the minority doesn't. The push for marriage equality, for example, is driven by the fact that the "majority" agrees with it, whereas 50 years ago it didn't. That doesn't mean I think a majority has the right to do whatever it wants, just that pure democracy is preferable to dictatorship.

This isn't about democracy. This is about tyranny of the majority. Not the same.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:21:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:49:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:40:26 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
When a minority oppresses a majority, if situations don't improve, the majority will eventually revolt.

When a majority oppresses a minority, what recourse does the minority have? Literally none.

This is an overly-simplistic view. History has shown us that tyrants are perfectly capable of staying in power even as their citizens starve to death. It has also shown us that effecting positive change through an "uprising" is very difficult to achieve.

It has also shown us that those tyrants are always deposed. Try again.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:23:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:09:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:33:10 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:52:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:21:32 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 7:57:40 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 7:17:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 6:10:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.

Firstly, it is important to understand that "minority" in this context is not a minority group but simply "not the majority."

Yes. And? Tyranny of the majority is still far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. If 51% of the population votes to kill 49%, damn straight I'm defending the 49%.

I was clarifying because you were switching between the two. It is actually easier to undo tyranny of majority because you only need to change the minds of a few people to swing the opinions. The 51% killing the 49% is a fun imaginary situation, but I presume you would also be against the 5% taking up as and slaughtering the 95%. History has shown that is far more likely.

I actually wasn't. When I said "minorities are champions of tolerance," I literally meant numeric minorities in democratic societies.

I just presumed because this way makes no sense. You are suggesting that when republicans were the majority and democrats were the minority in the 80's that democrats were more tolerant. Then when they took over in 92' they spontaneously became less tolerant and the republicans (now a minority) spontaneously became more tolerant. Then it flopped back in the 2000's with Bush, and then back again in 2008 with Obama? Are you thinking that republicans are more tolerant towards blacks and hispanics right now?

That's not how majority/minority works. Not really. Americans are fairly consistent about a 40/20/40 with minor variations.

So there was never the dreaded 51% that you're afraid of? Okay.




The closest that we see of this happening was Nazi Germany, which was a minority imposing on another minority.


Secondly, slavery was oppression by a minority that was rectified by the majority. Then you have other cases of oppression by various minorities, such as the Nazi, North Korea, and every military dictatorship. I'll take the less common risk of the type of oppression that the civil rights faced over the more common oppression that is done by various dictators.

No! it wasn't. Slavery and segregation especially were rectified by the actions of a few and by government action. A majority of people supported segregation - it was the minority and the Supreme Court (in the US) - that did away with it.

Hitler was democratically elected.

Lincoln won the 1860 election on the grounds of ending slavery. All of the presidential debates leading to the election were focused around slavery. It was a huge topic for the public and the single largest issue.

Lincoln was powerless to end slavery once the South seceded. Nor does one thing here address segregation.

The secession of the south was not the will of the majority, but the will of a minority that did not like the will of the majority. Case in point.

Funny. The majority definitely didn't want much to do with blacks. The majority didn't even favor abolishing slavery! Abolitionists were a minority; non-racists were a tiny minority.

Here is the 1860 republican platform

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

"we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic"

" the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country."

It was also a key issue in their 1856 platform

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

You know all of that deals with the Slave Trade, not the abolition of slavery, right? You also know that it was a minority in England who began campaigning against the slave trade first?

You should also note that Lincoln did not only win, but he did so not even being able to be voted for in 10 states (guess what side of the Mason Dixie line those states were on).





Also, hitter was turned down by the people in 1932 (only 36% of the vote) and was APPOINTED chancellor in 1933. He then won a circus election that was rip with fraud (and things like Jews can't vote and massive voter intimidation). This was also after he had taken all power already, so the majority did not give the power.

I don't know where you've heard this. Hitler won a free democratic election with a plurality of the vote. No one got a majority.

I heard it from reality. Hitler LOST the 1932 presidential election, gainning 36% of the vote (losing to Hindenburg with 53% of the vote). The NAZI party (not Hitler) took the most seats in the federal election (basically for their "congress") in 1933.

The Communists (the 3rd largest represented party) were banned (not by public vote), and their seats voided (to help increase the power of the Nazi party). Also, when voting on the Enabling act (which would give him the power to create laws without the public, or the publicly elected president having any power or input), the Nazi party had arrested many members of the social democrat party to keep them from voting against it. None of this EVER had a majority support from the people.

The next election (Nov 1933), no non-Nazis were allowed on the ballots and no write-ins were allowed.

Now this here is interesting, because I've studied Germany in political science, and nowhere was it said that non-Nazis were prohibited from the ballot.

All other political parties were abolished in 1933

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It only took them a few months to remove all other parties. Also, (I know this is not something that you argued, but it has been argued before so I'm addressing it now) many people support a constitution for the very purpose of preventing "tyranny of a majority" however Germany had a constitution at the time and it was simply bypassed (Though I would argue that the Nazi were not a case of a majority, but it just shows that a constitution would not be able to stop it regardless).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:23:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 1:21:19 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:46:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:34:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Citizens are only free to spread the "right" ideas without tyranny of the majority?

You don't seriously think "tyranny of the majority" entails letting minorities have rights, do you?

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The point is that democracy often leads to positive change, while tyranny of the minority doesn't. The push for marriage equality, for example, is driven by the fact that the "majority" agrees with it, whereas 50 years ago it didn't. That doesn't mean I think a majority has the right to do whatever it wants, just that pure democracy is preferable to dictatorship.

This isn't about democracy. This is about tyranny of the majority. Not the same.

Please explain how they are different.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:24:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 1:23:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/25/2014 1:21:19 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:46:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:34:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Citizens are only free to spread the "right" ideas without tyranny of the majority?

You don't seriously think "tyranny of the majority" entails letting minorities have rights, do you?

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The point is that democracy often leads to positive change, while tyranny of the minority doesn't. The push for marriage equality, for example, is driven by the fact that the "majority" agrees with it, whereas 50 years ago it didn't. That doesn't mean I think a majority has the right to do whatever it wants, just that pure democracy is preferable to dictatorship.

This isn't about democracy. This is about tyranny of the majority. Not the same.

Please explain how they are different.

Democracy entails protection of individual liberties, including for minorities.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:27:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 1:24:50 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/25/2014 1:23:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/25/2014 1:21:19 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:46:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:34:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Citizens are only free to spread the "right" ideas without tyranny of the majority?

You don't seriously think "tyranny of the majority" entails letting minorities have rights, do you?

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The point is that democracy often leads to positive change, while tyranny of the minority doesn't. The push for marriage equality, for example, is driven by the fact that the "majority" agrees with it, whereas 50 years ago it didn't. That doesn't mean I think a majority has the right to do whatever it wants, just that pure democracy is preferable to dictatorship.

This isn't about democracy. This is about tyranny of the majority. Not the same.

Please explain how they are different.

Democracy entails protection of individual liberties, including for minorities.

Not necessarily, although they usually go together.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:28:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 1:27:40 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/25/2014 1:24:50 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/25/2014 1:23:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/25/2014 1:21:19 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:46:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:34:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:19:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:37:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Tyranny of a majority is far harder to undo, especially without replacing it with another tyranny. Not to mention minorities have often proven to be bigger champions of tolerance (largely because, as a minority, it is in their interests for they themselves to be tolerated). Slavery and civil rights, for instance, were oppressive majority actions that minorities had to rectify.


I'd argue the opposite is true. Tyrants use force (or threat of force) to suppress calls for change, and propaganda to keep their citizens aloof (e.g. North Korea and the Soviet Union). On the other hand, democracies allow for positive change, because citizens are free to spread the right ideas. Moreover, overthrowing a tyrant leaves a political vacuum, which often leads to another taking his place.

Citizens are only free to spread the "right" ideas without tyranny of the majority?

You don't seriously think "tyranny of the majority" entails letting minorities have rights, do you?

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The point is that democracy often leads to positive change, while tyranny of the minority doesn't. The push for marriage equality, for example, is driven by the fact that the "majority" agrees with it, whereas 50 years ago it didn't. That doesn't mean I think a majority has the right to do whatever it wants, just that pure democracy is preferable to dictatorship.

This isn't about democracy. This is about tyranny of the majority. Not the same.

Please explain how they are different.

Democracy entails protection of individual liberties, including for minorities.

Not necessarily, although they usually go together.

Yes necessarily. I reject the definition that democracy is just elections.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:29:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 1:21:48 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:49:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:40:26 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
When a minority oppresses a majority, if situations don't improve, the majority will eventually revolt.

When a majority oppresses a minority, what recourse does the minority have? Literally none.

This is an overly-simplistic view. History has shown us that tyrants are perfectly capable of staying in power even as their citizens starve to death. It has also shown us that effecting positive change through an "uprising" is very difficult to achieve.

It has also shown us that those tyrants are always deposed. Try again.

Like I said, once they are overthrown, a struggle usually ensues as to who will take their place.