5 ms·

I see pure, unfettered democracy in action. It's ugly, but I love it.

by tomelders 16y ago

jbermudes 16y ago
In the "2 wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner" sense...
- Devilboy 16y ago
  Democracy will always be the tyranny of the majority.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Actually this seems to be a case of the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Or rather the lambs friends private army.
- tomelders 16y ago
  If the Lamb in this scenario is a litigious bully who stretches the law to breaking point and abuses privileges that aren't available to you or I, then yes.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    No, we're the lambs. One of the wolves is a giant multinational company, the other owns tanks and can control Internet peering. On behalf of the rest of you lambs, I'd like to thank people who commit crimes to make points about freedom online for picking this fight. I'm sure we'll do just fine in it.
    - bluedanieru 16y ago
      I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting one should put up with some injustice in the face of the threat of more of it?
      - tptacek 16y ago
        No. You're right. What you should definitely try to do is use coercion against people who can outspend you $1,000,000,000 to $1, or against people who employ hundreds of people authorized to discharge firearms.
        bluedanieru 16y ago
        I know you're being sarcastic, but actually you are completely correct.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
jerf 16y ago
The essence of Democracy is not that the majority wins. The essence of democracy and other representational systems (such as the variant on democracy we actually have) is that when processes are followed and the vote is fair, the losers agree to go gracefully and wait for the next vote for their next chance at victory. The winners don't need to be told they won; they know it. It's getting the losers to go gracefully via proxy violence rather than actual violence that is the key to civilization as we know it. This is the losers not going gracefully. (Or at least, the likely losers. Actually democracy has not yet made its decision, it's still deliberating on the matter of jurisdiction, let alone the actual crime at hand.) This is the breakdown of democracy, not a celebration of it. I won't even immediately leap to saying that's a bad thing, because Democracy !=== "Good". I'm just saying, this is not democracy. It's either anarchy or mob rule. And if you actually like democracy, raw or otherwise, you shouldn't agree with Anonymous. A democracy is all about means rather than ends, and as tempting as it may be to agree with the end it is imperative to the integrity of the system that you stand against someone getting there with the wrong means. If you don't like Sony, boycott, legislate, lobby, convince with words and fair deeds, not mob criminality.
- bluedanieru 16y ago
  I counter that organizations like Sony have already so subverted our democracy that this entire point is moot. The laws that allow them to do what they do were not enacted in a democratic fashion. And to be honest I'm more concerned with the ends than the means anyway, finally. Democratic ideals are something everyone should strive toward to be sure, but things have perhaps degraded to the point that they need to be set aside in the short term.
  - jerf 16y ago
    "The laws that allow them to do what they do were not enacted in a democratic fashion." Which laws specifically have been passed by Congress despite the fact that, say, 60%+ of the people would greatly disagree with it, and empower Sony to do these things? I consider the DMCA a great mistake. I've spent way more time than the average Internet denizen thinking so, thinking about it, writing about it [1]. I have some very refined opinions on how bad an idea it is. I do not delude myself into thinking that I have the support of the people. Most people don't care, shading into supporting the basic functionality of the DMCA, at least come vote time. Sorry. It's the truth. It has even perhaps been passed via some dubious methods, but, again, certainly not above the will of the people. I think a lot of people use "subverted Democracy" as a code word for "enacted something I don't like". But that's not a subversion of democracy; that's when you enact something a lot of people don't like. Yes, there's a time and a place for writing the system off and taking justice into your own hands. This isn't even close to it. That's not something to be taken lightly. [1]: http://www.jerf.org/iri/blogbook/communication_ethics http://www.jerf.org/iri/blogbook/communication_ethics
uvdiv 16y ago
"I see pure, unfettered democracy in action." I see an extremely tiny minority using intimidation in an attempt to force political outcomes they could not hope to achieve by democratic means.

I see pure, unfettered democracy in action. It's ugly, but I love it.

jbermudes 16y ago

In the "2 wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner" sense...

Devilboy 16y ago
Democracy will always be the tyranny of the majority.
tomjen3 16y ago
Actually this seems to be a case of the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Or rather the lambs friends private army.
tomelders 16y ago
If the Lamb in this scenario is a litigious bully who stretches the law to breaking point and abuses privileges that aren't available to you or I, then yes.
- tptacek 16y ago
  No, we're the lambs. One of the wolves is a giant multinational company, the other owns tanks and can control Internet peering. On behalf of the rest of you lambs, I'd like to thank people who commit crimes to make points about freedom online for picking this fight. I'm sure we'll do just fine in it.
  - bluedanieru 16y ago
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting one should put up with some injustice in the face of the threat of more of it?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      No. You're right. What you should definitely try to do is use coercion against people who can outspend you $1,000,000,000 to $1, or against people who employ hundreds of people authorized to discharge firearms.
      - bluedanieru 16y ago
        I know you're being sarcastic, but actually you are completely correct.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]

jerf 16y ago

The essence of Democracy is not that the majority wins. The essence of democracy and other representational systems (such as the variant on democracy we actually have) is that when processes are followed and the vote is fair, the losers agree to go gracefully and wait for the next vote for their next chance at victory. The winners don't need to be told they won; they know it. It's getting the losers to go gracefully via proxy violence rather than actual violence that is the key to civilization as we know it. This is the losers not going gracefully. (Or at least, the likely losers. Actually democracy has not yet made its decision, it's still deliberating on the matter of jurisdiction, let alone the actual crime at hand.) This is the breakdown of democracy, not a celebration of it. I won't even immediately leap to saying that's a bad thing, because Democracy !=== "Good". I'm just saying, this is not democracy. It's either anarchy or mob rule. And if you actually like democracy, raw or otherwise, you shouldn't agree with Anonymous. A democracy is all about means rather than ends, and as tempting as it may be to agree with the end it is imperative to the integrity of the system that you stand against someone getting there with the wrong means. If you don't like Sony, boycott, legislate, lobby, convince with words and fair deeds, not mob criminality.

bluedanieru 16y ago
I counter that organizations like Sony have already so subverted our democracy that this entire point is moot. The laws that allow them to do what they do were not enacted in a democratic fashion. And to be honest I'm more concerned with the ends than the means anyway, finally. Democratic ideals are something everyone should strive toward to be sure, but things have perhaps degraded to the point that they need to be set aside in the short term.
- jerf 16y ago
  "The laws that allow them to do what they do were not enacted in a democratic fashion." Which laws specifically have been passed by Congress despite the fact that, say, 60%+ of the people would greatly disagree with it, and empower Sony to do these things? I consider the DMCA a great mistake. I've spent way more time than the average Internet denizen thinking so, thinking about it, writing about it [1]. I have some very refined opinions on how bad an idea it is. I do not delude myself into thinking that I have the support of the people. Most people don't care, shading into supporting the basic functionality of the DMCA, at least come vote time. Sorry. It's the truth. It has even perhaps been passed via some dubious methods, but, again, certainly not above the will of the people. I think a lot of people use "subverted Democracy" as a code word for "enacted something I don't like". But that's not a subversion of democracy; that's when you enact something a lot of people don't like. Yes, there's a time and a place for writing the system off and taking justice into your own hands. This isn't even close to it. That's not something to be taken lightly. [1]: http://www.jerf.org/iri/blogbook/communication_ethics http://www.jerf.org/iri/blogbook/communication_ethics

uvdiv 16y ago

"I see pure, unfettered democracy in action." I see an extremely tiny minority using intimidation in an attempt to force political outcomes they could not hope to achieve by democratic means.