3 ms·

The Revolutionary War was also opposed by the majority of the people in the colonies. The majority of a large population is always and without exception a dumb

The Revolutionary War was also opposed by the majority of the people in the colonies. The majority of a large population is always and without exception a dumb herd. It's the rare context where you should listen to what that type of majority says or claims to want. The wisdom of crowds is one of the more idiotic concepts popularized in the past 30 years. Even more than intelligence is a very scarce attribute, being competent at utilizing reason and generally being rational (by intent, wilfully; being focused on purpose in the direction of being rational and working to maintain that orientation, which requires persistent effort, while the median person is exceptionally lazy). It's why you shouldn't bother asking people what they want when it comes to building the future. The masses have absolutely no idea what they're doing with their own lives most of the time, much less have any grasp of what's possible when it comes to assembling the future (as referenced Henry Ford & faster horses). People will say: well then you're invalidating Democracy by ignoring the majority! No. Concepts of rights as in the Bill of Rights are specifically created to protect the minority from the irrational, dangerous majority; it's overwhelmingly meant as a restraint on the ill behavior of the majority. It helps (emphasis) to prevent the majority from voting your rights as a minority individual out of existence just because they have that majority vote. We need things like the Bill of Rights precisely because the majority are so often dumb, dangerous and irrational (and they're not irrational + dangerous 24/7, the tendency is for them to go on rampages historically, so they must be caged by something like the Bill of Rights to try to prevent that behavior).

mrangle 3y ago
However, you miss the point of the American Revolution and the government that followed. Which specifically is to suppress tyrants. Stated otherwise, it is to limit those who are willing to act on their own behalf in a manner that oppresses the "dumb herd" while cloaking themselves in righteousness, superiority, and public good. The view to which I am responding renders the American Revolution baseless: a waste of time and effort that was only to shift under which aristocrat(s) the colonists were to be governed. To them, it would have been of little consequence. Excepting for the important issue of War deaths. Last, you begin from an argument of government and justify it with a conclusion that appeals to individual rights. It doesn't follow. There's zero conflict between democracy and the Bill of Rights that anti-populist rulership solves. The term "populism" being from the brand of propaganda that likes to have the word "democracy" constantly oozing out of its mouth while excusing itself to serve mostly special and politician dynasty interests. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that we've ever had a democracy. At the same time only a fool would allow self-styled aristocrats to claim historical just-governance. It's just not the case. Again, all this argument does is nullify most of the proposition for the American Revolution.
pessimizer 3y ago
I'd rather obey King George than you. > Concepts of rights as in the Bill of Rights are specifically created to protect the minority from the irrational, dangerous majority They're not meant to protect the rulers from the citizenry, even though the rulers are a minority. In our form of government, they're meant to be representatives of the popular will, not a special interest group. What you're talking about is monarchy.

mrangle 3y ago

However, you miss the point of the American Revolution and the government that followed. Which specifically is to suppress tyrants. Stated otherwise, it is to limit those who are willing to act on their own behalf in a manner that oppresses the "dumb herd" while cloaking themselves in righteousness, superiority, and public good. The view to which I am responding renders the American Revolution baseless: a waste of time and effort that was only to shift under which aristocrat(s) the colonists were to be governed. To them, it would have been of little consequence. Excepting for the important issue of War deaths. Last, you begin from an argument of government and justify it with a conclusion that appeals to individual rights. It doesn't follow. There's zero conflict between democracy and the Bill of Rights that anti-populist rulership solves. The term "populism" being from the brand of propaganda that likes to have the word "democracy" constantly oozing out of its mouth while excusing itself to serve mostly special and politician dynasty interests. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that we've ever had a democracy. At the same time only a fool would allow self-styled aristocrats to claim historical just-governance. It's just not the case. Again, all this argument does is nullify most of the proposition for the American Revolution.

pessimizer 3y ago

I'd rather obey King George than you. > Concepts of rights as in the Bill of Rights are specifically created to protect the minority from the irrational, dangerous majority They're not meant to protect the rulers from the citizenry, even though the rulers are a minority. In our form of government, they're meant to be representatives of the popular will, not a special interest group. What you're talking about is monarchy.