3 ms·

Thomas Jefferson had similar thoughts, a “tyranny of the majority”. Say 1 in 100 people are doctors. People are tired of paying doctors and want care for free.

Thomas Jefferson had similar thoughts, a “tyranny of the majority”. Say 1 in 100 people are doctors. People are tired of paying doctors and want care for free. They put it to a vote. 99 vote to force doctors to work for free. Democracy triumphs, but at what cost? This is partly why America was founded as a republic, not a pure democracy.

rvense 5y ago
99 people forcing one person (or one thousand people) into slave labour does not satisfy my definition of democracy. Of course those that are more affected by an issue should have more of a say in it. Of course democracy must be founded on basic, inviolable rights. That's the whole point.
- least 5y ago
  > ...does not satisfy my definition of democracy. You can't just ignore the negative aspects of a system because it doesn't suit your sensibilities. Can you do the same for a system of government you're diametrically opposed to? > Of course those that are more affected by an issue should have more of a say in it. So you're fine with the electoral college then, right? > Of course democracy must be founded on basic, inviolable rights. That's the whole point. Not really. Democracy is simply a system to decide on policies that govern a group of people and there is little inherent value in it itself. It can be used to oppress just as easily as it can protect the rights of individuals living in the system. It's dependent on the voting population. Critics of democracy simply argue that it is too easy to oppress when you give individuals direct access to the power to do so.
  - rvense 5y ago
    > You can't just ignore the negative aspects of a system because it doesn't suit your sensibilities. What I said was, if a system of government allows one group of people to turn another group of people into slaves, then it isn't a democracy. By my definition, a democracy does not allow slavery, because a democracy must treat all citizens equally. > Democracy is simply a system to decide on policies that govern a group of people To me it's more than that. It's a principle of governance. Not just the how of the system, but the why. > So you're fine with the electoral college then, right? You mean the American system for electing presidents? I don't know exactly, I am half a world away. I will say that from here that country looks pretty bad all in all, but the fact that a single person holds so much power seems a lot more problematic than how that person is picked - although it would be interesting to see what would happen if they somehow managed to find a good one. As far as I know that's never happened.
    - least 5y ago
      > What I said was, if a system of government allows one group of people to turn another group of people into slaves, then it isn't a democracy. By my definition, a democracy does not allow slavery, because a democracy must treat all citizens equally. Your 'definition' here doesn't coincide with reality, where a group may easily be oppressed by the majority. The fact that the example is at the most extreme does not invalidate that. Democracy does not require any sort of protections for those it is governing, just that they have a vote. > To me it's more than that. It's a principle of governance. Not just the how of the system, but the why. But it's not that. The principles you are ascribing to democracy are neither unique to nor a requirement for democracy. In fact quite frequently they are not. That is my point, people keep conflating democracy with these qualities that it does not possess. Advocate for those principles, not democracy.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      > By my definition You're using a different definition than Thiel is. His definition is simply a description of a system. If a country is a representative democracy or a direct democracy, where each person gets to vote, then it's a democracy by definition. Your definition pertains to an outcome of a system, such as equality. Neither of these are wrong definitions, since they're both commonly used in regular conversation, but you are talking at cross purposes. Under his definition, which is what we should be talking about if we're addressing this in good faith, democracy (the system) and freedom are at odds because democracy is just majority rule. Women who can't get an abortion, rich people that have to give up 50% of their money, minorities that are discriminated against in law, victimless crimes being prosecuted (weed), and so on. These are examples of the majority using their vote to strip the freedoms and property and time of other people. Each day that I go to work, 1/2 of my day goes directly to the state, merely because a majority of the electorate thinks they are entitled to it. This isn't literal slavery (where 100% instead of 50% of my time is taken from me), but it's certainly not freedom when 1/2 of my productive energy is taken from me by threat of prison time if I do not comply.

rvense 5y ago

99 people forcing one person (or one thousand people) into slave labour does not satisfy my definition of democracy. Of course those that are more affected by an issue should have more of a say in it. Of course democracy must be founded on basic, inviolable rights. That's the whole point.

least 5y ago
> ...does not satisfy my definition of democracy. You can't just ignore the negative aspects of a system because it doesn't suit your sensibilities. Can you do the same for a system of government you're diametrically opposed to? > Of course those that are more affected by an issue should have more of a say in it. So you're fine with the electoral college then, right? > Of course democracy must be founded on basic, inviolable rights. That's the whole point. Not really. Democracy is simply a system to decide on policies that govern a group of people and there is little inherent value in it itself. It can be used to oppress just as easily as it can protect the rights of individuals living in the system. It's dependent on the voting population. Critics of democracy simply argue that it is too easy to oppress when you give individuals direct access to the power to do so.
- rvense 5y ago
  > You can't just ignore the negative aspects of a system because it doesn't suit your sensibilities. What I said was, if a system of government allows one group of people to turn another group of people into slaves, then it isn't a democracy. By my definition, a democracy does not allow slavery, because a democracy must treat all citizens equally. > Democracy is simply a system to decide on policies that govern a group of people To me it's more than that. It's a principle of governance. Not just the how of the system, but the why. > So you're fine with the electoral college then, right? You mean the American system for electing presidents? I don't know exactly, I am half a world away. I will say that from here that country looks pretty bad all in all, but the fact that a single person holds so much power seems a lot more problematic than how that person is picked - although it would be interesting to see what would happen if they somehow managed to find a good one. As far as I know that's never happened.
  - least 5y ago
    > What I said was, if a system of government allows one group of people to turn another group of people into slaves, then it isn't a democracy. By my definition, a democracy does not allow slavery, because a democracy must treat all citizens equally. Your 'definition' here doesn't coincide with reality, where a group may easily be oppressed by the majority. The fact that the example is at the most extreme does not invalidate that. Democracy does not require any sort of protections for those it is governing, just that they have a vote. > To me it's more than that. It's a principle of governance. Not just the how of the system, but the why. But it's not that. The principles you are ascribing to democracy are neither unique to nor a requirement for democracy. In fact quite frequently they are not. That is my point, people keep conflating democracy with these qualities that it does not possess. Advocate for those principles, not democracy.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    > By my definition You're using a different definition than Thiel is. His definition is simply a description of a system. If a country is a representative democracy or a direct democracy, where each person gets to vote, then it's a democracy by definition. Your definition pertains to an outcome of a system, such as equality. Neither of these are wrong definitions, since they're both commonly used in regular conversation, but you are talking at cross purposes. Under his definition, which is what we should be talking about if we're addressing this in good faith, democracy (the system) and freedom are at odds because democracy is just majority rule. Women who can't get an abortion, rich people that have to give up 50% of their money, minorities that are discriminated against in law, victimless crimes being prosecuted (weed), and so on. These are examples of the majority using their vote to strip the freedoms and property and time of other people. Each day that I go to work, 1/2 of my day goes directly to the state, merely because a majority of the electorate thinks they are entitled to it. This isn't literal slavery (where 100% instead of 50% of my time is taken from me), but it's certainly not freedom when 1/2 of my productive energy is taken from me by threat of prison time if I do not comply.