NationStates Jolt Archive

After trying my hand as a statist in another thread, I began thinking about this: How does an oppressive democratic government get overturned? When a minority is oppressed by a voting majority, how does that minority earn full rights? Armed revolution would not work, and it can't be assumed that the voting system will eventually free them. So is democracy a recipe for disaster if the settings are right?

Yeah. That's why it's a good idea to have a constitution that prevents a tyranny by the majority.

democracy is very dependent on the people but there is still a small amount of dictatorship in there so if the time comes the government has the following:

*the military are under the control of the Queen/constitution

*the government has laws that forbid it from becoming tyranny by majority

*the education system usually teaches (albeit rather secretly) children to not become part of a tyranny by majority

*foreign powers will usually lend a hand (unless your country’s poor that is)

Yeah. That's why it's a good idea to have a constitution that prevents a tyranny by the majority.

Constitutions can be oppressive as well. Prohibition and gay marriage bans, for example.

After trying my hand as a statist in another thread, I began thinking about this: How does an oppressive democratic government get overturned? When a minority is oppressed by a voting majority, how does that minority earn full rights? Armed revolution would not work, and it can't be assumed that the voting system will eventually free them. So is democracy a recipe for disaster if the settings are right?
Well considering the fact that we already had such a system in the U.S., and that the majority then turned over power to a minority who didn't even have the minority vote, I'd say that the problem is nonexistent.
Oppression of the minority isn't the problem, the problem is that people eventually realize that they can vote themselves into more money, and then everything goes to pot.

More democratic freedom would work (i.e. STV voting).

Constitutions can be oppressive as well. Prohibition and gay marriage bans, for example.
To ammend the constitution, at least the US constitution, one needs a two thirds majority. That gives some protection that otherwise the minority wouldn't have.

I still think any religios government is dangerous.

I still think any religios government is dangerous.

Why so? They may breed strong faithed people, but that doesn't mean it could grow up a legion of terrorists.

So is democracy a recipe for disaster if the settings are right?

well, assuming weapons are fairly evenly distributed, probably (if they aren't, then it doesn't really matter who is in the majority - the guys with the guns ultimately win).

in naive majoritarian (or even super-majoritarian) form, democracy institutionalizes the concept of political winners and losers. it causes factions to emerge that view the other side as 'the enemy' to be locked out of the decision making process as much as is feasible and to try to ensure future dominance over them. if one of these factions gets it into their heads to really dominate the minority faction, there isn't much that can be done about it within the system other than rely on some form of non-democratic power to 'save' you (the minority of guys with the guns, or the institutions those armed guys support - the constitution and courts in merkan terms). but that's a risky business and certainly can't be absolutely counted on for protection - courts can be stacked and constitutions changed or ignored or abolished.

your only real options at that point will lie outside of the system.

Why so? They may breed strong faithed people, but that doesn't mean it could grow up a legion of terrorists.

It indoctrinates, and restricts freedoms beyond thsoe constraints imposed by capitalism. Moreover, and court that can prosecute upon grounds of theology is a worrying entity.

It indoctrinates, and restricts freedoms beyond thsoe constraints imposed by capitalism. Moreover, and court that can prosecute upon grounds of theology is a worrying entity.

Well, you have to remember that the people are used to it and are frequently seeing it as a test of fate. While you may think that here, they may also think different things about you there.

Well, you have to remember that the people are used to it and are frequently seeing it as a test of fate. While you may think that here, they may also think different things about you there.

Would you like to be tried for adultery or "jealousy"?

It would depend upon how many checks were placed in the system. That wouldn't gurantee anything, he would just slow down movement.

To ammend the constitution, at least the US constitution, one needs a two thirds majority.

yeah, and in order to amend the article of confederation you needed the (unanimous?) approval of congress and subsequent approval of every state legislature. that was inconvenient when a certain portion of the leadership wanted to give themselves more power, so they bypassed all that and just wrote up another constitution that allowed them to get around that pesky minority who opposed them.

constitutions aren't magic.

Would you like to be tried for adultery or "jealousy"?

If I was raised in that kind of environment then belief, then I should have no problem with it. However, I am not. You, I believe, are not either, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing on the point.

If I was raised in that kind of environment then belief, then I should have no problem with it. However, I am not. You, I believe, are not either, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing on the point.

Quite true. However, as an objective observer, you must admit the capacity for fundamental maleficience in a relgious state is immense.

Democracy is always a dangerous form of government. At best, a calculated risk.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." – Thomas Jefferson

A political democracy combined with democratic tendencies throughout society is probably the least dangerous society in existence.

In such a society such inequalities would probably not occur in the first place, but if they did large-scale civil disobedience would be an option.

It would depend upon how many checks were placed in the system. That wouldn't gurantee anything, he would just slow down movement.

Checks and Balances in a democracy only exist between political parties or coalitions.

churchill sums up my beleif on this


"democracy is the WORST form of goverment. Except for all the others."

Constitutions can be oppressive as well. Prohibition and gay marriage bans, for example.
Constitutions only make sense when they give rights. That's why things like prohibition fail and other nonsense like gay marriage bans and flag burning prohibitions will never be adopted.

Constitutions only make sense when they give rights. That's why things like prohibition fail and other nonsense like gay marriage bans and flag burning prohibitions will never be adopted.

Exactly. Even when alcahol was prohibited, everybody still drank. Gay marriage is prohibited, but gay people are somehow getting married (thank you, San Francisco!).

I laugh at oppressive "laws".

Exactly. Even when alcahol was prohibited, everybody still drank. Gay marriage is prohibited, but gay people are somehow getting married (thank you, San Francisco!).

I laugh at oppressive "laws".
And let me get my little pitch in for the First Freedom ... The fact that our Constitution only gives rights means that the Second Amendment is clearly aimed at ensuring individuals have the right to keep arms. Limiting arms to a National Guard or Reserve force would limit the freedoms of individuals.

And now back to our regularly scheduled drivel.

And let me get my little pitch in for the First Freedom ... The fact that our Constitution only gives rights means that the Second Amendment is clearly aimed at ensuring individuals have the right to keep arms. Limiting arms to a National Guard or Reserve force would limit the freedoms of individuals.

And now back to our regularly scheduled drivel.

Except the Second Amendment, even as interpreted by those supportive of gun control, doesn't limit arms to a National Guard. It merely prohibits the limitation of the right of that "National Guard" to bear arms.

yeah, and in order to amend the article of confederation you needed the (unanimous?) approval of congress and subsequent approval of every state legislature. that was inconvenient when a certain portion of the leadership wanted to give themselves more power, so they bypassed all that and just wrote up another constitution that allowed them to get around that pesky minority who opposed them.

constitutions aren't magic.
The articles of confederation enabled a single state (say, Rhode Island), to block something that EVERY SINGLE OTHER STATE wanted. More importantly, it prevented Congress from actually FORCING the states to do anything.

It would depend upon how many checks were placed in the system. That wouldn't gurantee anything, he would just slow down movement.


Checks and Balances in a democracy only exist between political parties or coalitions.
Not true. Checks and Balances are built into the US system. None of the three branches of the US government (President, Congress, Judicial System) have the most power. Congress makes and passes laws, but such laws must be passed by the President. In addition, the judicial system, especially the Supreme Court, can nullify any law found to be unconstitutional.

The articles of confederation enabled a single state (say, Rhode Island), to block something that EVERY SINGLE OTHER STATE wanted. More importantly, it prevented Congress from actually FORCING the states to do anything.

except that, clearly, it didn't. it said that it would, but when push came to shove, those unhappy with it did not in fact require unanimous consent to change it. which is my point - constitutions aren't magical and relying on one to save you from tyranny of any sort is misguided at best.

churchill sums up my beleif on this

trite and wrong?

As for the thread's question... this is the shortest answer I can possibly give. -> No.

Democracy is always a dangerous form of government. At best, a calculated risk.

though the risks and dangers of collective decision making can be greatly reduced by getting rid of the popularity contests and avoiding the institutionalized creation of winners and losers (and the resentment and antagonism that goes with them). the trick is to implement decision making institutions that come up with solutions that are at least generally agreed to or tolerable by pretty much everybody, rather than the "we have the votes, so fuck you" system we all know and love.

A political democracy combined with democratic tendencies throughout society is probably the least dangerous society in existence.

In such a society such inequalities would probably not occur in the first place, but if they did large-scale civil disobedience would be an option.

Civil disobedience would only be an option as long as the majority allowed it, otherwise there would be violence in the streets. In this situation martial law will probably rule and rights would be completely resticted.

Constitutions only make sense when they give rights. That's why things like prohibition fail and other nonsense like gay marriage bans and flag burning prohibitions will never be adopted.

Allow rights, you mean. Government cannot give rights, only take them away. But you are correct, when government restricts rights, it only causes more expenses and problems for government.

And let me get my little pitch in for the First Freedom ... The fact that our Constitution only gives rights means that the Second Amendment is clearly aimed at ensuring individuals have the right to keep arms. Limiting arms to a National Guard or Reserve force would limit the freedoms of individuals.

And now back to our regularly scheduled drivel.

That is far from our first freedom in the eyes of many, but here's to you getting a second amendment shot in.

I don't even know what my point was in replying here, but here's to being drunk.

Cheers.

you might find it interesting to take a look at david graeber's thoughts on democracy in fragments of an anarchist anthropology (http://www.prickly-paradigm.com/paradigm14.pdf) (the relevant part starts on page 82, which is 43 on the pdf)

"Majority democracy, we might say, can only emerge when two factors coincide:

1. a feeling that people should have equal say in making group decisions, and
2. a coercive apparatus capable of enforcing those decisions.

For most of human history, it has been extremely unusual to have both at the same time. Where egalitarian societies exist, it is also usually considered wrong to impose systematic coercion. Where a machinery of coercion did exist, it did not even occur to those wielding it that they were enforcing any sort of popular will."

Well considering the fact that we already had such a system in the U.S., and that the majority then turned over power to a minority who didn't even have the minority vote, I'd say that the problem is nonexistent.
Oppression of the minority isn't the problem, the problem is that people eventually realize that they can vote themselves into more money, and then everything goes to pot.

Noooo... Assuming you are talking about the democrats giving black people the vote that is just so's they could safely win the election so it is a dud claim.
And the american constitution isnt upheld ANYWAY. eg. red and terrorist scares.

and YEs any religious government is dangerous because it invokes a view that only this religion is right and invokes blind patriotism. anyone defending blind patriotism in this day and age should be laughed at. Very loudly.
And handing over the military control to the queen/king doesnt work at all eg iraq.

I still think any religios government is dangerous.

No dont steriotype because of islamic countries i not a mueslim but not every mueslim country is poor and corrupt look the the U.A.E.

Infact im a christian.

Democracy works when the country is rigt. Britain sent a long time becming what it is. It still isn't democracy but because the country has worked for it we have a democratic national identity.

Where it goes wrong is in places like Iraq with no national identity with a previously opressed majority who can now take ppower back with a vengeance. No way to hold it all together.

though the risks and dangers of collective decision making can be greatly reduced by getting rid of the popularity contests and avoiding the institutionalized creation of winners and losers (and the resentment and antagonism that goes with them). the trick is to implement decision making institutions that come up with solutions that are at least generally agreed to or tolerable by pretty much everybody, rather than the "we have the votes, so fuck you" system we all know and love.
That sounds interesting, but I don't think there has been (and probably never will be) an intstitution devoid of corruption. Eventually, they'd become the elite, or a puppet for them (on a long enough timeline).

Exactly. Even when alcahol was prohibited, everybody still drank. Gay marriage is prohibited, but gay people are somehow getting married (thank you, San Francisco!).

I laugh at oppressive "laws".

If people truly believed that then they would have no problem with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The fact that Pro-Choicers would have a problem with that shows that they believe enforced laws to be effective. As for "gay" people getting married you yourself gave that game away when you thanked San Francisco. The only reason it happens is that San Francisco and other political locales *do* permit it or else homosexuals would have to go whistle.

Incidentally the claim that "everybody drank" during Prohibition turns out to be wishful mythmaking on the part of the literary writers of the period and shortly thereafter. From Richard Shenkman's "I Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode or Not", p. 120 we learn such things as the fact that America's booze consumption went 2.6 gallons of pure alchohol in 1910 to 0.97 in 1934. Doubtless the people who claim Prohibition failed would like to claim this a coincidence, right? :rolleyes:

Also, from the same book, same page, we learn that the Census shows deaths due to chronic/acute alchoholism went from 7.3 at the beginning of the 20th Century to 2.5 in 1932 "the last full year of Prohibition. The only reason we believe otherwise is that people like FitzGerald and the rest of the deservedly "Lost Generation" were all a bunch of raging alkies. (Thus showing that Homer was right about the power of a "sacred poet").

So don't kid yourself that laws don't matter. Or better still, if you are Pro-Choice *do* kid yourself on this subject so that those of us who are Pro-Life will get a better chance to prove you wrong. ;)

After trying my hand as a statist in another thread, I began thinking about this: How does an oppressive democratic government get overturned? When a minority is oppressed by a voting majority, how does that minority earn full rights? Armed revolution would not work, and it can't be assumed that the voting system will eventually free them. So is democracy a recipe for disaster if the settings are right?

Any minority that feels oppressed in a democracy probably deserves its "oppression". They got that way by failing to appeal to the Independent/Undecided voters so if the voting system can't free them it's because either they're a gang of incompetant boobs who can't talk straight or else their preferred program is so abhorrent that nobody sane would ever give it a 2nd look in a hundred years. :p

"Majority democracy, we might say, can only emerge when two factors coincide:

1. a feeling that people should have equal say in making group decisions, and
2. a coercive apparatus capable of enforcing those decisions.

I was working with ideas like this in the other thread.

I was trying to say that I support the government in enforcing its laws, as it must enforce its laws in order to legitimize the democracy and the political rights of the people. But, as the other posters pointed out, the necessity of enforcing laws has a tendency to give the government carte blanche to trample the rights of the minority opinion.

The general idea is that even equal say cannot legitimize a democracy, and it gets to the point where the only legitimate government is an objective totalitarian styled government.

Any minority that feels oppressed in a democracy probably deserves its "oppression".

I call bullshit.

It is not upon the minority to prove their merit for equal rights, equal rights are assumed.

In this situation martial law will probably rule and rights would be completely resticted.

The only group that can guarantee and safeguard rights is ultimately the population granted those rights, and if it is denied power such rights are nothing more than window dressing.

In any undemocratic society those with higher quantities of power will ultimately seek to undermine the rights of those with lower quantities, and the result is tyranny.

A tyranny of the majority is far preferable to a tyranny of the minority, and I doubt any such tyranny would maintain itself.

The only group that can guarantee and safeguard rights is ultimately the population granted those rights, and if it is denied power such rights are nothing more than window dressing.

What avenue does a minority have for protecting their rights within a democratic society?

In any undemocratic society those with higher quantities of power will ultimately seek to undermine the rights of those with lower quantities, and the result is tyranny.

How are democratic societies different?

A tyranny of the majority is far preferable to a tyranny of the minority, and I doubt any such tyranny would maintain itself.

No tyranny is permissable. Tyranny of the majority is just as morally reprehensible as tyranny by the minority.

I call bullshit.

*It is not upon the minority to prove their merit for equal rights, equal rights are assumed.* [Emphasis Mine]

That is *precisely* why the minority does not have the right to complain. By definition it is *the minority* and the possession of equal rights means that it is their duty to give way before those who are not the minority *by definition*. If they were any good they would be able to sway a few voters their way and become the majority themselves. Childish whines of "Help, help! We is being supressed because the mean ole majority voted us out of office and we want our plushy ole government patronage jobs instead of jobs where we actually work." is hardly likely to gain my sympathy.

Do not forget one thing: You speak of an artificial situation that does not apply in the real world. In real life there is always more than one faction and there are always independent voters. A minority that cannot form alliances and sway independents to become the new majority deserves to feel the consequence of defeat until it learns to do these things. :)

A minority that cannot form alliances and sway independents to become the new majority deserves to feel the consequence of defeat until it learns to do these things. :)

even when those 'consequences' involve systematic murder?

Examples? :p

And while we're at it define "democracy" for the purposes of this discussion! Are we talking Aristotlean/Polybiusian terms - democracy/anarchy, oligarchy/aristocracy, monarchy/tyranny with possible mention of republics as the hybrid form that was supposed to combine the virtues of all 3, or are we talking in terms of Walter Bagehot's "representative democracy" under which he classified both the English Parliamentarian system and the American Federalist system? o_O

I'm willing to defend democracy within either framework but it would worthwhile to know the framework you guys are using when you natter about democracy being "oppressive". :rolleyes: