First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Democracy is Tyranny
Posted 1/3/09

BlargTheCat wrote:
Democracy = Able to choose a leader under the opinion of the people


Sadly the politician elected is not forced to follow the opinions who got him/her elected.

1446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Greece
Offline
Posted 1/3/09
Democrasy is freedom of speech,power of the people to choose their own leader,everybody being equal before the law and eachother.How can you say tyranny is democrasy -_-
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/09

the_glob wrote:

This is frankly stupid. How stupid? Here's an example. using your logic.
"So, if a man decides to not hire a black nanny, he should be able to do so right and racism is good?

Ignoring the fact that no actual solutions were proposed by you, ever heard of civil war? Before you make the mistake of shooting yourself in the foot, let me remind you that your solutions will need to avoid the following
"Just because the larger group wants something, doesn’t mean the smaller group should be subjected to it. "

Good luck on that


You're attentive, aren't you? Ever heard of that magical thing called sarcasm?
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/09

SeraphAlford wrote:
You're attentive, aren't you? Ever heard of that magical thing called sarcasm?


Sadly attempting to hide under the blanket of sarcasm is pretty obvious when your previous point attempted eleboration. Still i see no attempt at any solution. Then i would assume you have none and this topic is basically an attempt to look contrarian and intelligent while failing. Well done
27546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / London
Offline
Posted 3/3/09

mikejacobs wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

A lot of people staunchly defend even the most extreme form of democracy. Personally, I don’t know that I like true democracy. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Just because the larger group wants something, doesn’t mean the smaller group should be subjected to it.

What are your opinions?


Ahh, yes, mobocracy, mob tyranny, how could we escape that, but then again, can you propose a government that isn't a tyranny? But then again: tyranny: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator. So in what sense, is democracy a tyranny? Our leaders are restricted by the constitution (in most countries that is), therefore they do not have absolute power meaning that they don't have tyranny, and the majority do not have the ability to pass laws, only suggest and encourage the passing of a particular law.


They however have the power to change law without permission of the masses just because they have been selected. You would be suprised about how much legislation gets proposed without people actually knowing about it.
1446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41
Offline
Posted 3/3/09
Democracy=Tyrrany?

Aren't Tyrranies ruled by a singular Tyrant.

So Every citizen of a democracy is a tyrant by this logic. Hello fellow tyrant. I'm gonna dominate you" , "no I'm gonna dominate you'. sounds like children in a sandbox to me.

Well you can either complain or do something about it in a democracy. But in a tyrrany your not allowed unless the prison warden tells you you can.

You aren't ready for fact checking, read a dictionary first.
Posted 3/3/09

BlargTheCat wrote:

Democracy = Able to choose a leader under the opinion of the people

Tyranny = Overpowering people to make you their leader

....right?


With the current way things are run only the 2 big parties really stand a chance of getting elected and they have the media on their sides in terms of coverage, and their view points, the second and third tier parties never have a chance to get elected because the majority of the public just focuses on the the ones with the most money and tv ads. Sad that people like Nader and Ron Paul cannot get close to the white house because the other parties just smother them with their wealth and power making democracy seem like a moot point.
I myself would subscribe to individualist anarchism but I will never see things run that way, so it is just a pipe dream.
Posted 3/3/09
I am going to say this and say this only once there are 2 kinds of democracy Representative democracy which America has and direct democracy a true democracy . A Representative democracy Is where you elect officials to make the best decisions for your country and hope they will do the best to run it, an direct democracy is where the people vote on every thing that comes by, every law that needs to be passed and so on. We have a direct democracy because there was no way back int 1700 when the country was 1st born to keep track of everyone and be able to count all the votes from state to state because of the lack of transportation and technology to do so. They really need to change to a direct democracy but I do not see that happing anytime soon and that's why it can be a tyranny depending on who we elect into office.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 3/3/09
According to this definition every form of rule is ultimately a tyranny. The question is self-defeating.
8715 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / North Carolina
Offline
Posted 3/3/09 , edited 3/3/09

mathew312 wrote:

Democracy=Tyrrany?

Aren't Tyrranies ruled by a singular Tyrant.

So Every citizen of a democracy is a tyrant by this logic. Hello fellow tyrant. I'm gonna dominate you" , "no I'm gonna dominate you'. sounds like children in a sandbox to me.

Well you can either complain or do something about it in a democracy. But in a tyrrany your not allowed unless the prison warden tells you you can.

You aren't ready for fact checking, read a dictionary first.


Wow, you have a dictionary! Grats, you're still a fucking dumb ass. Reality check.

The point was Democracy is a Tyranny (also, learn to spell this word please) of the MAJORITY, not a complete true Tyranny, but something "similar". The majority is one object, the minority is the other. The majority rules, and the minority doesn't. The minority can't choose who rules them, the majority does choose and the majority do the ruling.

Let's think for a second before we go in the extended discussion section okay? Fancy sentences just ain't enough.
2142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / America, Fuck Yeah.
Offline
Posted 3/3/09
There is a lot of whining going on about our government nowadays, but when you look at it from a historical standpoint, we got a pretty damn good one right now.
2142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / America, Fuck Yeah.
Offline
Posted 3/3/09

superninjaboy wrote:


BlargTheCat wrote:

Democracy = Able to choose a leader under the opinion of the people

Tyranny = Overpowering people to make you their leader

....right?


With the current way things are run only the 2 big parties really stand a chance of getting elected and they have the media on their sides in terms of coverage, and their view points, the second and third tier parties never have a chance to get elected because the majority of the public just focuses on the the ones with the most money and tv ads. Sad that people like Nader and Ron Paul cannot get close to the white house because the other parties just smother them with their wealth and power making democracy seem like a moot point.
I myself would subscribe to individualist anarchism but I will never see things run that way, so it is just a pipe dream.


First, excuse my double post.

Anyway, the reason a multi-party system is ineffective is because nobody wins. In a two party system, the majority of the nation is has their way (a few exceptions aside). With a multi party system, it is possible for 34% or less of the nation to elect a representative that rules over 100% of the population. Not a good idea. Chances are parties in a multi-party system will end up allying and eventually end up in a two party system anyways. Thats what we did.
8715 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / North Carolina
Offline
Posted 3/3/09

Nayru wrote:

There is a lot of whining going on about our government nowadays, but when you look at it from a historical standpoint, we got a pretty damn good one right now.


Mainly because we have such great potential, but we end up with shit quality. Why would we be happy with that?

Sure we don't have a Hitler as a president, but that doesn't justify the fact we aren't meeting our potential.
2142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / America, Fuck Yeah.
Offline
Posted 3/3/09

HokiePokie wrote:


Nayru wrote:

There is a lot of whining going on about our government nowadays, but when you look at it from a historical standpoint, we got a pretty damn good one right now.


Mainly because we have such great potential, but we end up with shit quality. Why would we be happy with that?

Sure we don't have a Hitler as a president, but that doesn't justify the fact we aren't meeting our potential.


Yeah we can always get better, but I agree with you on the fact that our system gives the nation the largest potential for success.
1446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41
Offline
Posted 3/3/09

HokiePokie wrote:


mathew312 wrote:

Democracy=Tyrrany?

Aren't Tyrranies ruled by a singular Tyrant.

So Every citizen of a democracy is a tyrant by this logic. Hello fellow tyrant. I'm gonna dominate you" , "no I'm gonna dominate you'. sounds like children in a sandbox to me.

Well you can either complain or do something about it in a democracy. But in a tyrrany your not allowed unless the prison warden tells you you can.

You aren't ready for fact checking, read a dictionary first.


Wow, you have a dictionary! Grats, you're still a fucking dumb ass. Reality check.

The point was Democracy is a Tyranny (also, learn to spell this word please) of the MAJORITY, not a complete true Tyranny, but something "similar". The majority is one object, the minority is the other. The majority rules, and the minority doesn't. The minority can't choose who rules them, the majority does choose and the majority do the ruling.

Let's think for a second before we go in the extended discussion section okay? Fancy sentences just ain't enough.


[I will own my spelling mistakes, but it's not really appropriate to criticize spelling mistakes when many of the people who frequent this site do not use english as their primary language. And to say so to one of them when they Are learning is kind of hurtful and mean spirited.]

Fine, but than by that logic Tyranny must apply to all forms of government including the lack of government. If that's the case then It seems by that logic that this topic is wasted on the extended discussion section, because then no matter the opinion it is moot. Which means the only appropriate response to the topic is one word "yes". My sentences are not fancy, I just have a lot to say Whether my thoughts pass anyone's mustard is for each person who reads it to decide. Your response only prompts me to extend my discussion on this extended forum topic. (I prefer not to sound like an ass, but it seems I am aalready an ass to you for expressing my thoughts on the subject.)

If Tyranny applies to all governments does that make everyone doomed to oppression. I doubt most people would feel that way. Besides democracy has the tools built into it's design to combat oppression. But their is often a faction that claims to be oppressed when everyone has the greatest freedom, but when they come into power they take it all away from the many. But by many I refer to a broad spectrum of opinion and beleifs that trend toward a consentual if not perfect medium reflecting the participating majority. There are always those who don't care to participate or choose to not be involved on their own principle who accept the status quo. I exclude those because they voluntarily keep themselves out of the equation.

But, tyranny is such a heavy handed word that it must apply to everyone including the majority or it loses much of it's meaning, or it can only apply in refering to a bully who purposely singles a group out to malign and terrorize. I know the truth is not in such absolutes, but tyranny often reflects the implications of absolutes.

It seems to be an easy way to pout when someone doesn't get their way and claim, "you're hurting me". But, if everyone has a sincere opportunity to participate then tyranny is a lot less plausible..
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.