6 ms·

Democracy is ostensibly majority rule (don't nitpick). The majority of people are poor. Therefore, democracy is the rule of the poor (Aristotle). We do not live

Democracy is ostensibly majority rule (don't nitpick). The majority of people are poor. Therefore, democracy is the rule of the poor (Aristotle). We do not live in a democracy.

lucian1900 7y ago
If the poor were truly in charge, why would they choose to remain poor?
- mbillie1 7y ago
  I think you're missing what the parent is saying: since the majority are poor, they plainly don't rule (since then they wouldn't remain poor). If democracy is defined as "majority rule," and we plainly see that the majority in the US do NOT rule, then the US is not a democracy.
  - lucian1900 7y ago
    Oh yes, I was agreeing.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  If Party D promises free money to the poor and Party R does not, do you expect no poor people to vote for Party R? What if Party R has other things about it which appeal to the poor? The poor have the opportunity to vote, and rule indirectly, and yet for many reasons often vote against their own best economic interests. Some of those reasons are good, and some are not.
- TimMurnaghan 7y ago
  See Gramsci's work on hegemony. Or (slightly easier) Tressel's "Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" which makes exactly the point about how the poor become convinced that it's better to give more things to the rich.
- P_I_Staker 7y ago
  They aren't is the point. They would be if we lived in a democracy, and according to OP we don't.
kbutler 7y ago
You'd have to define "poor". If you look at the progress of the poor in the US over the last 200 years, they're doing really, really well.
- lucian1900 7y ago
  So well they can't afford homes, health care or even food? Despite working more than full time?
  - kbutler 7y ago
    And cable TV and air conditioning? "For example, in 2005, 63.7% of those living in poverty had cable or satellite television. In some cases the report even said that people currently living in poverty were actually better off than middle class people of the recent past. For example, in 2005, 78.3% of households living in poverty had air conditioning, whereas in 1970, 36.0% of all households had air conditioning." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Overstating_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#O... So in 35 years, 78% of the poor had something that only 36% of households had previously. Lacking access to necessary food/shelter/health care is "absolute poverty" (not the usually reported "relative poverty" rate https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-states/ https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-s...). And by that measure, including existing government and other benefits and transfer payments, the US poverty rate is near zero. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/09/17/americas-real-poverty-rate-is-around-and-about-zero/#7700a5d35c6a https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/09/17/americas... I'm not saying we can't do better, but we should also realize how far we've come.
    - P_I_Staker 7y ago
      I don't know, some of these things can be attributed to the falling cost of technology and culture. Air conditioners are seen as necessary, instead of a luxury. It may never have even occurred to some people that they should prioritize affording money for one. Poor people could probably afford smartphones too when they first came out, but they only became common when everyone had one, and costs came down. Personally, I don't think quality of life is measured by air conditioning and cable TV either.

Democracy is ostensibly majority rule (don't nitpick). The majority of people are poor. Therefore, democracy is the rule of the poor (Aristotle). We do not live in a democracy.

lucian1900 7y ago

If the poor were truly in charge, why would they choose to remain poor?

mbillie1 7y ago
I think you're missing what the parent is saying: since the majority are poor, they plainly don't rule (since then they wouldn't remain poor). If democracy is defined as "majority rule," and we plainly see that the majority in the US do NOT rule, then the US is not a democracy.
- lucian1900 7y ago
  Oh yes, I was agreeing.
pwinnski 7y ago
If Party D promises free money to the poor and Party R does not, do you expect no poor people to vote for Party R? What if Party R has other things about it which appeal to the poor? The poor have the opportunity to vote, and rule indirectly, and yet for many reasons often vote against their own best economic interests. Some of those reasons are good, and some are not.
TimMurnaghan 7y ago
See Gramsci's work on hegemony. Or (slightly easier) Tressel's "Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" which makes exactly the point about how the poor become convinced that it's better to give more things to the rich.
P_I_Staker 7y ago
They aren't is the point. They would be if we lived in a democracy, and according to OP we don't.

kbutler 7y ago

You'd have to define "poor". If you look at the progress of the poor in the US over the last 200 years, they're doing really, really well.

lucian1900 7y ago
So well they can't afford homes, health care or even food? Despite working more than full time?
- kbutler 7y ago
  And cable TV and air conditioning? "For example, in 2005, 63.7% of those living in poverty had cable or satellite television. In some cases the report even said that people currently living in poverty were actually better off than middle class people of the recent past. For example, in 2005, 78.3% of households living in poverty had air conditioning, whereas in 1970, 36.0% of all households had air conditioning." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Overstating_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#O... So in 35 years, 78% of the poor had something that only 36% of households had previously. Lacking access to necessary food/shelter/health care is "absolute poverty" (not the usually reported "relative poverty" rate https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-states/ https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-s...). And by that measure, including existing government and other benefits and transfer payments, the US poverty rate is near zero. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/09/17/americas-real-poverty-rate-is-around-and-about-zero/#7700a5d35c6a https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/09/17/americas... I'm not saying we can't do better, but we should also realize how far we've come.
  - P_I_Staker 7y ago
    I don't know, some of these things can be attributed to the falling cost of technology and culture. Air conditioners are seen as necessary, instead of a luxury. It may never have even occurred to some people that they should prioritize affording money for one. Poor people could probably afford smartphones too when they first came out, but they only became common when everyone had one, and costs came down. Personally, I don't think quality of life is measured by air conditioning and cable TV either.