NationStates Jolt Archive

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?

Just wondering what democracy is all about.


(poll due(is it pretentious to say 'due'? (or to say 'pretentious?(or to use serial brackets?))))

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?

Just wondering what democracy is all about.


(poll due(is it pretentious to say 'due'? (or to say 'pretentious?(or to use serial brackets?))))

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner..." Yes, it would be democratic; but because something is voted by the majority does not necessarily make it the a correct act... Which is why pure democracy is opposed by most everyone.

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?


Technically, yes.

Which is why there is no such thing as a pure democracy in the world.

No, it would not be undemocratic not to line up the minority; it would be undemocratic to not allow the minority to secede in such a situation (or any situation).

Yes, it would be democratic.

Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.

oh great another thread about democracy.
It reaches for an ideal that can never happen, but allows relative social mobility.
Dictatorships reach for one persons ideal, to crush others, allowing no social mobility also known as a caste system.
So in short democracy can be a tyranny of the majority, but the other option is despotism.

What i'd like to know is what would your ideal society be led by? and who would lead it?

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?

Just wondering what democracy is all about.


(poll due(is it pretentious to say 'due'? (or to say 'pretentious?(or to use serial brackets?))))

In essence that is what could democraticaly happen, in reality i highly doubt that the majority would vote such a thing.

Although the point you make with this example is a sound one. Democracy does indeed equal the tryany of the majority over the wants of the minority. It though is still one of the best workable political models we have.

No, it would not be undemocratic not to line up the minority;

Yes, it would.

it would be undemocratic to not allow the minority to secede in such a situation (or any situation).

If the majority voted against it, it wouldn't be undemocratic.

No, it would not be undemocratic not to line up the minority; it would be undemocratic to not allow the minority to secede in such a situation (or any situation).

I see I could have been a little more careful with the double/triple negatives :)

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?

Just wondering what democracy is all about.


You've made the mistake that a lot of people make. A democracy (a sensible one, at least) is not a "tyranny of the majority", because it has a Constitution which is there to prevent law-makers (picked by your average ignorant and prejudiced voter) from oppressing minorities.

thats why we have dandy things like Constitutions and Monarchs...

though really governments are powerless against the majority anyway, which means the scapegoats had better flee/do some kind of mingling

In some ways, yes it is undemocratic.

Consider the groups who are still oppressed in some ways, like homosexuals, only on the basis of their sexuality and nothing more. Tyranny by majority sees to it that in some cases, they are denied the same rights as heterosexual people, such as the right to marry and adopt.

Is it just me that thinks the poll makes no sense whatsoever?
If it does make sense can someone please explain it to me, my head hurts trying to read it.

oh great another thread about democracy.
It reaches for an ideal that can never happen, but allows relative social mobility.
Dictatorships reach for one persons ideal, to crush others, allowing no social mobility also known as a caste system.
So in short democracy can be a tyranny of the majority, but the other option is despotism.

What i'd like to know is what would your ideal society be led by? and who would lead it?

"[T]he rule of 999 people over one is more stable, less subject to change, than the rule of one over 999. The one can always be assassinated; majorities are never exterminated, only minorities, by the majorities."
-Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn


Monarchy FTW

In such a scenario, it would indeed be undemocratic to prevent the shootings.

But I'm hoping everyone realises that in such cases pure democracy is hardly a good thing - so this realisation shouldn't keep many people up at night.

Is it just me that thinks the poll makes no sense whatsoever?
If it does make sense can someone please explain it to me, my head hurts trying to read it.
just count the negatives and then draw a picture, you can do it... *pats Mhij on head*

just count the negatives and then draw a picture, you can do it... *pats Mhij on head*

What does line up minority mean?
Draw a line over them?
urg head still hurts.

What does line up minority mean?
Draw a line over them?
urg head still hurts.

okay, line up minority means tell them to stand in line. In order to be shot.

I admit, I could have said it better. Sorry.

So what the poll really says is;
Is it democratic to line up other people to be shot?
I actually wrote on paper to figure it out, but i got there.

So what the poll really says is;
Is it democratic to line up other people to be shot?
I actually wrote on paper to figure it out, but i got there.

Is it democratic to line up 49% of all the people in a country, to be shot, if the majority, 51% wants them shot?

Is it democratic to line up 49% of all the people in a country, to be shot, if the majority, 51% wants them shot?

It's 100% democratic.

Yes, it would be democratic...In theory Yes, if there is a referendum it would be Democratic.
But it would be a crime on Humanity all the same.

Lets face it: Yes, Democracy is the Majority calling the shots.
I will support Democracy until someone here at NSG presents me with a better alternative. Yes, this is a ## open challenge for all of you NSG. Yes, I am talking to you. Bring it on :D

BTW, shame on you Democracy -fair weather- fans... ;)

In theory Yes, if there is a referendum it would be Democratic.
But it would be a crime on Humanity all the same.

Lets face it: Yes, Democracy is the Majority calling the shots.
I will support Democracy until someone here at NSG presents me with a better alternative. Yes, this is a ## open challenge for all of you NSG. Yes, I am talking to you. Bring it on :D

BTW, shame on you Democracy -fair weather- fans... ;)

I then propose a Socialist/quasi-Anarchistic society.

Is it democratic to line up 49% of all the people in a country, to be shot, if the majority, 51% wants them shot?yes. of course it is.

I then propose a Socialist/quasi-Anarchistic society.define quasi-anarchistico-fabuloso-IdowhatIwant-heaven with 1 or more examples of current govs.

yes. of course it is.

But a tad inhumane.
Where is this going anyway? so it's democratic for the majority to rule minority, i suppose a better system would be to force everyone to vote on referendums and such, then the minorities would avoid being picked on.
What is the actual definition of democracy when we're discussing it here?
The power of the people?, what is democracy?

define quasi-anarchistico-fabuloso-IdowhatIwant-heaven with a example of a current gov.

Okay how about making it legal to grow weed for ones own consumption?

But a tad inhumane.not "just a tad."


Its a crime on Humanity. Its comparable to slave trade and the other African genocides.

Okay how about making it legal to grow weed for ones own consumption?I am all for it.

But I am not an example of a current Gov, and neither you are. ;)

I am all for it.

But I am not an example of a current Gov, and neither you are. ;)

True but the current British guv, would not do this.

Then again, remember that fallacy, argumentum ad populum? During the argumentative phase before voting, this can be used to oppose the options that's against the will of the minority.

Well, there are some ideologies that tries to marry democratic values with socialist values.

I see no sense in anarchy,... it's breeding ground for despots and ochlocrats (which the latter is clearly tyranny by majority).

All being said, I don't know jack about how politics and governments work.

Well, there's an inherent problem with your analogy. In one sense you could say that it's totally democratic; the result was arrived by a showing of hands, or ballot or other method. However, the very core of what democracy is about would be compromised, therefore making it undemocratic.

Democracy is a means of non-violent conflict resolution. I.E., the new ruler is chosen by show of hands rather than by armed conflict, or taxes are raised to a certain level and redistributed based on which politician has the most influence with the electorate. By the majority opting to kill off the minority, you don't really have democracy anymore, you have civil war.

Classical Athenian democracy had instances where the electors ruled to punish people by death in a vote, sometimes by very fanciful whims. Modern democracy does not work the same way. Without Rule of Law, democracy is little more than a decision-making mechanic. No sensible Democracy is going to authorise the mass killing of a minority of the electorate.

Well, there's an inherent problem with your analogy. In one sense you could say that it's totally democratic; the result was arrived by a showing of hands, or ballot or other method. However, the very core of what democracy is about would be compromised, therefore making it undemocratic.
Err. Democracy isn't about loving your fellow man. It's about the general public voting for things.

A majority voting to kill a minority group, and that being carried out as a result is democracy. It's stupid, but that's democracy for you.
Democracy is a means of non-violent conflict resolution. I.E., the new ruler is chosen by show of hands rather than by armed conflict, or taxes are raised to a certain level and redistributed based on which politician has the most influence with the electorate.
That's not democracy. It would take the entirety of the people involved to have a vote on the matter of taxes, how much they are, where they're allocated, how they're collected and who is to monitor the process, amongst other things to be democracy.
By the majority opting to kill off the minority, you don't really have democracy anymore, you have civil war.
They vote whether to enter wars or not in Switzerland. Can't see why a civil war couldn't be voted for.
Classical Athenian democracy had instances where the electors ruled to punish people by death in a vote, sometimes by very fanciful whims. Modern democracy does not work the same way. Without Rule of Law, democracy is little more than a decision-making mechanic. No sensible Democracy is going to authorise the mass killing of a minority of the electorate.
People aren't sensible creatures. Which is why democracy is a pretty poor idea.

Okay how about making it legal to grow weed for ones own consumption?

Modify that to "Making it legal to grow weed for any willing buyer's consumption (provided they're a reasonable age) or for one's own consumption" and I'll agree.

Err. Democracy isn't about loving your fellow man. It's about the general public voting for things.

And where exactly did I say democracy was about 'loving your fellow man'? It certainly isn't. It's about involving the people in government and makingdecisions through debate rather than physical conflict. That's a democratic basic.

A majority voting to kill a minority group, and that being carried out as a result is democracy. It's stupid, but that's democracy for you.

They arrived at the decision by a showing of hands. Killing the people with the least votes, makes it undemocratic, because the whole point of democracy is to arrive at decisions without resorting to killing each other to arrive at the result.

That's not democracy.

Yes, it is.

They vote whether to enter wars or not in Switzerland. Can't see why a civil war couldn't be voted for.

Civil war is the result of a breakdown in government. Usually when a minority refuses to agree with a majority.

People aren't sensible creatures. Which is why democracy is a pretty poor idea.

People aren't sensible creatures. Which is why dictatorship is a pretty poor idea.

...democracy is about involving the people in government and makingdecisions through debate..Democracy is the "Majority calling the shots" plain and simple.

People aren't sensible creatures. Which is why democracy is a pretty poor idea.

People aren't sensible creatures. Which is why dictatorship is a pretty poor idea.

QFT x2

People aren't sensible creatures.yes they are, My ex-girlfriends are proof of that.

yes they are, Thats why they will never vote to line-up-and-kill 49% of the pop.

Democracy is the "Majority calling the shots" plain and simple.

I can agree with that. I won't agree that killing off the minority is democratic.

And where exactly did I say democracy was about 'loving your fellow man'? It certainly isn't. It's about involving the people in government and makingdecisions through debate rather than physical conflict. That's a democratic basic.
The decisions one makes can lead to physical confict.
They arrived at the decision by a showing of hands. Killing the people with the least votes, makes it undemocratic, because the whole point of democracy is to arrive at decisions without resorting to killing each other to arrive at the result.
Killing people isn't in itself undemocratic. Killing them without a vote on the matter is.
Yes, it is.
Not in the purest sense, no.
Civil war is the result of a breakdown in government. Usually when a minority refuses to agree with a majority.
Err yes, which is exactly the kind of thing that a fully democratic state would bring upon itself. If you have one group which is over-represented in society, then they will win every vote, and what they say goes, no matter how ludicrous it is.
People aren't sensible creatures. Which is why dictatorship is a pretty poor idea.
It's far, far easier to consider things without having to talk over idiots, which is why a democracy in the most 'geniune' sense is generally a complete farce, which is why it needs limits.

I can agree with that. I won't agree that killing off the minority is democratic.You know.. freedom-of-speech does cover your right to dis-agree with yourself ;)

The decisions one makes can lead to physical confict.

This is of course, true. But the moment that leads to internal physical conflict, i.e. conflict between two sides in a state, they aren't resolving their issues democratically anymore, they are resorting to conflict. One of the key issues with dictatorship, for example, is succession of rulers. In most cases, the only way to assure that position is through physical means, which leads to civil wars. Democracy, allows decisions to be made without resorting to these methods. Now, no Democracy is perfect, but then again, no government system is perfect.

Killing people isn't in itself undemocratic. Killing them without a vote on the matter is.

As I said before, if the majority rules to kill off dissenting voters, it's not democratic.


Not in the purest sense, no.

It doesn't have to be in 'the purest sense'. We don't live in a classical democratic state (thankfully). But it's akin to saying that because I'm drinking a chocolate shake, and the original shake was vanilla, that I'm not really drinking a shake. Modern democracies are still democratic. We just have to find a balance between democratic methods and good government.


Err yes, which is exactly the kind of thing that a fully democratic state would bring upon itself. If you have one group which is over-represented in society, then they will win every vote, and what they say goes, no matter how ludicrous it is.

This is not unique to democracies.

It's far, far easier to consider things without having to talk over idiots, which is why a democracy in the most 'geniune' sense is generally a complete farce, which is why it needs limits.

Again, if you are arguing over Classical Democracy, than I agree. It's flawed. But few in their right mind would argue for such a thing. Most modern democracies have limits, particularly the Rule of Law and binding Constitutions. But you can't look at modern democracies and say 'that isn't democracy', particularly when even Classical Athenian Democracy wasn't 'pure'. One must really talk about government forms in their practical forms.

You know.. freedom-of-speech does cover your right to dis-agree with yourself ;)

As I mentioned before, killling off the people who disagree with you isn't resolving things democratically.

As I mentioned before, killling off the people who disagree with you isn't resolving things democratically.Personally, I would vote -every time- for allowing their secession. Rather than using force against a minority.

But do understand this: I got just one vote.. and if you join me and vote for allowing minorities to go free, we got 2 votes.

you want real life examples? ok:

Yugoslavia: majority does not allow minority to break free.. unless there is armed conflict =bad
US: majority does not allow minority to break free.. unless there is armed conflict =bad
Czechoslovakia: Slovaks say they want to break free? Majority says OK go ahead =good
Belgium: not quite there yet

You wan to talk about other countries?
...
sure.. where are you from Mikesburg?

Of course it would be democratic to kill the minority; democracy is nothing more than mob rule. And glorified scraps of paper called constitutions can do nothing to stop it, as they are interpreted and enforced at the pleasure of the ruling majority. The only thing that stands in the way of tyranny is liberal custom, which people expect others to act in accordance with. Once this is eroded, or it doesn't exist in the first place, there is no safeguard against despotism of any kind, majoritarian or otherwise.

...
sure.. where are you from Mikesburg?

He's from Oshawa, Toronto's worn out bitch.

He's from Oshawa, Toronto's worn out bitch.LOL... :D

I refuse a dictatorship of one, and likewise I refuse the dictatorship of a million.

As stated previously, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." That's Ben Franklin for you. However, Franklin went on to show how it should be done, namely, that of bestowing liberty.

You see, it is democratic for a majority to vote to kill off a minority. But it's not liberty. That's an entirely different manner.

Ben Franklin's full quote reads as follows:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

That is the difference between Democracy and Liberty.

Better a tyranny of majority than tyranny of minority.

No, it would not be democratic at all.

A common mistake is that people believe democracy to be majority rule. But that isn't what it says - demos is the people - democracy = rule of the people.

That's ALL of the people, not just some, not just most.

Properly, democracy is rule of the majority with respect for the rights of the minority.

Democracies have a bad habit of sliding into mob rule - that's what destroyed Athens, in the end. But that isn't democracy.

No, it would not be democratic at all.

A common mistake is that people believe democracy to be majority rule. But that isn't what it says - demos is the people - democracy = rule of the people.

That's ALL of the people, not just some, not just most.

Properly, democracy is rule of the majority with respect for the rights of the minority.

Democracies have a bad habit of sliding into mob rule - that's what destroyed Athens, in the end. But that isn't democracy.

No, you're talking about democracy with liberty. Pure democracy allows people to kill off a minority if the majority wants to.

Please people, respect the difference between democracy and liberty, and what each means!

Democracies have a bad habit of sliding into mob rule - that's what destroyed Athens, in the end.
Athens was not a Democracy.
.
A common mistake is that people believe democracy to be majority rule.:rolleyes: maybe because it is majority rule.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy

:rolleyes:
Athens was not a Democracy.

Au Contraire - it was a true democracy (all voters vote on all major issues). True, it did have a restricted franchise - but that was, and is, true of every democracy on earth.

No, you're talking about democracy with liberty. Pure democracy allows people to kill off a minority if the majority wants to.

Please people, respect the difference between democracy and liberty, and what each means!

Well, all Liberty means is "The freedom to do as you choose." While I agree that democracy does not have to include provisions for Liberty, that does not preclude it from being a real democracy, with respect for those who vote other than the majority.

:rolleyes: maybe because it is majority rule.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy

No, that's wrong. Also note: Dictionaries provide usages, not definitions.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."Apparently the Confederates were not well-armed enough. ;)

Au Contraire - Athens was a true democracySince when Rule-by-the-Minority is Democracy?

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?

Just wondering what democracy is all about.


(poll due(is it pretentious to say 'due'? (or to say 'pretentious?(or to use serial brackets?))))

Why would the majority vote that?

:rolleyes: maybe because it is majority rule.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracyNo, that's wrong. Also note: Dictionaries provide usages, not definitions.meh


You are entitled to your opinion (I am not going to waste more time, I agree with the dictionary Definition, you dont.)

Since when Rule-by-the-Minority is Democracy?

Very often, actually. For centuries, voting in Britain was restricted to landholding males. Yet Parliament was and is still considered a democratic body. Likewise, the government of the Union of South Africa was undoubtedly democratic - but again, as with all democracies, with a restricted franchise (though more restricted, in this case, than most, and for politically unacceptable reasons).

meh


You are entitled to your opinion (I am not going to waste time silly)

Fair enough, I don't think that track was going anywhere.

Very often, actually. For centuries, voting in Britain was restricted to landholding males.(poor/females cant vote?) Not a Democracy.
.
South Africa was undoubtedly democratic .. (negroes/slaves cant vote?) Not a Democracy.

Yes, it would.

If the majority voted against it, it wouldn't be undemocratic.

Of course it would be democratic to kill the minority; democracy is nothing more than mob rule. And glorified scraps of paper called constitutions can do nothing to stop it, as they are interpreted and enforced at the pleasure of the ruling majority. The only thing that stands in the way of tyranny is liberal custom, which people expect others to act in accordance with. Once this is eroded, or it doesn't exist in the first place, there is no safeguard against despotism of any kind, majoritarian or otherwise.Wrong. Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) is not simply people casting their votes. It is a set of several conditions.

(poor/females cant vote?) Not a Democracy.
.
(negroes/slaves cant vote?) Not a Democracy.

Okay. So, there was no such thing as a democracy prior to the very late 19th century?

Or, there are no democracies (since every nation restricts the franchise in some manner)?

Wrong. Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) is not simply people casting their votes. It is a set of several conditions.Merrian & Webster give you the definition of Democracy.

Wikipedia gives you a collection of opinions, interpretations and decorations.

But at the end of the Day, Wikipedia cannot invalidate the Dictionary definition: Democracy is rule by majority.

Okay. So, there was no such thing as a democracy prior to the very late 19th century?As far as I know.. Not in any large country. Maybe in some small tribes or something (I dont know).

Why would the majority vote that?dunno...because they want to? Does it matter?

As far as I know.. Not in any large country. Maybe in some small tribes or something (I dont know).

Okay, but I think you're being a bit harsh, frankly. Restricted franchises don't invalidate democracies today, I don't see why they should then.

Merrian & Webster give you the definition of Democracy.

Wikipedia gives you a collection of opinions, interpretations and decorations.

But at the end of the Day, Wikipedia cannot invalidate the Dictionary definition: Democracy is rule by majority.Democracy is government by the people, which typically takes the form of majority rule but doesn't always. This is indicated by the italicized 'especially' in the dictionary definition. It wouldn't be necessary to italicize the 'especially' if there weren't variances.

Merrian & Webster give you the definition of Democracy.

Wikipedia gives you a collection of opinions, interpretations and decorations.

But at the end of the Day, Wikipedia cannot invalidate the Dictionary definition: Democracy is rule by majority.Is the dictionary definition ultimate authority?

(poor/females cant vote?) Not a Democracy.
.
(negroes/slaves cant vote?) Not a Democracy.

Actually, yes, both of those do fulfill the requirements to be defined as "democracy."

Democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

The key to this is defining who "the people" would be. For instance, the USA is often described as the first modern democratic nation, yet more than 50% of the US population was summarily denied the opportunity to participate in government until the early 1900s. Obviously "the people" was not an all-inclusive term.

To this day, "the people" does not include all living persons in the USA. Living persons under the age of 18 are not permitted to vote. Persons under the age of 35 are not permitted to run for president. Et cetera. But the definition of democracy doesn't require rule by all living humans within a given nation. It simply, and broadly, invests power in "the people."

Is the dictionary definition ultimate authority?Another good point that people misattribute to democracy.

Democracy is government by the people, which typically takes the form of majority rule but doesn't always. This is indicated by the italicized 'especially' in the dictionary definition. It wouldn't be necessary to italicize the 'especially' if there weren't variances.
Precisely.

Is the dictionary definition ultimate authority?As far as I am concerned it is, unless you can prove it wrong.

Want to try?
Puts popcorn in the Microwave oven :D

As far as I am concerned it is, unless you can prove it wrong.

Want to try?
Puts popcorn in the Microwave oven :D

Would you accept the ruling of a court as proof?

Okay, but I think you're being a bit harsh, frankly. Restricted franchises don't invalidate democracies today, I don't see why they should then.these franchises you are talking about they somewhat restrict Democracy.

If you say Women or Negroes cannot vote.. the restriction is unreasonable and it DOES invalidate Democracy.

If we take your original example, In Athens, only the richest ~10% would vote.

Would you accept the ruling of a court?Of course not.

US Courts dont have universal Jurisdiction on "what is true".. and they have a very poor record when they are allowed to decide who should Govern.

neither do UK courts.. or any other particular court.

Of course not.

US Courts dont have universal Jurisdiction on "what is true".. and they have a very poor record when they are allowed to decide who should Govern.

neither do UK courts.. or any other particular court.
okay... but you are willing to give the universal Jurisdiction on "what is true" to the author of a dictionary:confused:

You realise that dictionaries don't write themselves, no?

Any particular dictionary that is truer than others?

*notes to self: when President, have Official Exclusive Dictionary written*

these franchises you are talking about they somewhat restrict Democracy.

If you say woman of Negroes cannot vote.. the restriction is unreasonable and it DOES invalidate Democracy.

If we take your original example, In Athens, only the richest ~10% would vote.

That's true, and I don't disagree that a restricted franchise equals a restricted democracy. But I should note that we also restrict democracy in a number of other ways; for instance, in Federal systems, certain powers are delegated to certain levels of government; and of course, all modern democracies are of the representative type, which is also a restriction.

But "restricted" doesn't mean "false". False democracies (one-party states, communist dictatorships, autocracies that "control" voting) are depressingly common in history; but I would say that anywhere that the electorate has a real choice, it is not false.

Democracy is government by the people, which typically takes the form of majority rule but doesn't always."Democracy typically takes the form of majority rule.. but doesn't always."

if by typically you mean to say ~96%..

Then It would call for a "fair-enough©" ...signed by me.

okay... but you are willing to give the universal Jurisdiction on "what is true" to the author of a dictionaryOne thing you can do, to prove me wrong, is to find a couple of World-Wide-respected Dictionaries, that Invalidate the Merriam & Webster Definition.

If you can do that, I will post a written apology in Wikipedia.

Good luck :D

"Democracy typically takes the form of majority rule.. but doesn't always."

if by typically you mean to say ~96%..

Then It would call for a "fair-enough©" ...signed by me.Even if it was approximately 96%, the other 4% would require interpretation, hence the validity of the wiki article (or some other interpretation, such as a court's).
Furthermore, 'majority rule' doesn't mean 'the majority is infallible and unquestionable'.

One thing you can do, to prove me wrong, is to find a couple of World-Wide-respected Dictionaries, that Invalidate the Merriam & Webster Definition.

If you can do that, I will post a written apology in Wikipedia.

Good luck :DI'll need some parameters...
What is a World-Wide-respected Dictionary?

Would partial invalidation cover it?

Furthermore, 'majority rule' doesn't mean 'the majority is infallible and unquestionable'.I never said that. I never said Democracy is infallible and unquestionable.

If you read the thread, I am on the record as saying a Democracy can commit crimes against humanity. And anygivensunday I am ready to condemn any Democracy that doing horrible things.. Like IDF says I have posted long streak of threads criticizing Israel and the US.

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?

Just wondering what democracy is all about.


(poll due(is it pretentious to say 'due'? (or to say 'pretentious?(or to use serial brackets?))))

Maybe in the ancient sense, but REPRESENTATIVE democracy in modern terms involves the protection of rights and civil liberties, and these include the right to life. If a country does not have a constitution with carefully protected freedoms and a purposefully elaborate, inefficient system to slow changes against these civil rights, still involving elections but a lot of them, it is not a democratic republic in the modern sense but a mob dictatorship.

In my mind, I don't think democracy or freedom is about the majority getting it's say, but about the protection of rights and civil liberties through an electoral process that is transparent, open to the public and prohibits rapid overbearing change. Indeed, I would argue that heaven is a democracy even though there's a dictator named God because while you do not have a say in the affairs of the kingdom, the kingdom will always protect your rights. The church might not, earthly authority might not, but God is the greatest liberator of all, for he is the only force in this world who will always allow you to do what you think is best. who will always give you freedom, even if it, sadly, leads you to ruin and the fires of hell.

The reason this all works, the reason you can have a kingdom that protects individual rights by slowing the rate of change, is because, while people may momentarilly be angry and want to "line up the minority," if you give them long enough to think about it, and give them long enough to think about what it is they're doing, and watch all their neighbors or coworkers or neighborhoods occupied by that minority slowly leave, they will start to question their decisions, and best of all, they will start to be worried about their own fate, and how their decisions could eventually come back to haunt them as their government (the mob) ceases greater mroe dictatorial power with every passing election, and month by month, tears away all of it's enemy and all the rights of it's citizens. And while some of them will still vote as they would have, some will change their minds, and enough will change their minds to overcome this majority as they realize they are giving up their freedom as an individual to make the mob freer, and they are forcing themselvs to be eternally haunted by the ghosts of their own decisions. This is why America has, among those who are asimmilated in to their society (slaves, immigrants, and indians not included), done a very good job in general of protecting individual rights.

So no, I do not believe that mob rule = democracy, for in the end it has nothing to do with the smaller majority (55, 60, 70, 80%) who want to line up the minority and shoot them, but everything to do with the larger majority (100% or near it) who want their rights, to varying degrees and emphasi, to be respected. In a way, I would say, off of this, that inefficiency is the greatest virtue of a government, particularly a democratic one.

He's from Oshawa, Toronto's worn out bitch.

Hey, we're not worn out. Just kind ridden hard and put away wet...

I'll need some parameters...
What is a World-Wide-respected Dictionary?a dictionary that I would trust for day to day definitions.

Would partial invalidation cover it?All your Dictionary needs to do is.. have you read the -Democracy- main definition.. and have you say "Boy, oh boy Merriam&Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy) is wrong.. Now ## owes me a historic apology on wikipedia" all accompanied by a Quagpit evil laugh :D

If your dictionary can do that for you.. then yes you have a shot at the NSG Heavyweighs Crown. May the force be with you ;)
going AFK for 5h.

I never said that. I never said Democracy is infallible and unquestionable.If democracy is not infallible and unquestionable, then it's possible to have institutional safeguards to prevent "tyranny of the majority" while still being democratic.

If democracy is not infallible and unquestionable, then it's possible to have institutional safeguards to prevent "tyranny of the majority" while still being democratic.yes and if it doesn't have your "safeguards" its still a democracy.

(poor/females cant vote?) Not a Democracy.
.
(negroes/slaves cant vote?) Not a Democracy.

children/teenagers/prisoners/deathrowers can't vote? Vot then?

Personally, I would vote -every time- for allowing their secession. Rather than using force against a minority.

But do understand this: I got just one vote.. and if you join me and vote for allowing minorities to go free, we got 2 votes.

you want real life examples? ok:

Yugoslavia: majority does not allow minority to break free.. unless there is armed conflict =bad
US: majority does not allow minority to break free.. unless there is armed conflict =bad
Czechoslovakia: Slovaks say they want to break free? Majority says OK go ahead =good
Belgium: not quite there yet

You wan to talk about other countries?
...
sure.. where are you from Mikesburg?

I agree with the right of secession; just not unilaterally, unless they can do so unarguably through force of arms. In a perfect world, two sides will agree to just split things up and go their separate ways. Unfortunately, it's usually much messier than that. In real life, sometimes that means the side with the bigger guns wins. In such a state, I don't think you have democracy anymore. You have a failed state.

As a Canadian, I can look at Quebec as an example as a possible 'state' to secede from Confederation. I agree that if a very obvious majority of Quebecois wanted to secede, that they should have the right to do so. However, to do so unilaterally without taking into account shared responsibilities with Canada and to the native communities that signed treaties with Canada is not right.

Such nationalism rarely works towards anything positive. However, in a situation where a minority is 'under the gun' by a majority that would even consider lining them up and shooting them... well, naturally they deserve a seperate state. It's just an unfortunate reality that real-world politics intervenes.

yes and if it doesn't have your "safeguards" its still a democracy.Not if it doesn't meet the set of conditions required to have a democracy.

a dictionary that I would trust for day to day definitions.

All your Dictionary needs to do is.. have you read the -Democracy- main definition.. and have you say "Boy, oh boy Merriam&Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy) is wrong.. Now ## owes me a historic apology on wikipedia" all accompanied by a Quagpit evil laugh :D

If your dictionary can do that for you.. then yes you have a shot at the NSG Heavyweighs Crown. May the force be with you ;)
going AFK for 5h.

Since such a dictionary will always give a definition simplified to the point of being wrong, or at best misleading, I will have to manage without that NSG Crown. I trust that life will somehow go on.... *is not sure*

Wrong.

Right.

Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) is not simply people casting their votes. It is a set of several conditions.

Democracy is majority rule.

Democracy is majority rule.Under a certain set of conditions.

Under a certain set of conditions.

No.

No.Yes.
How can the majority rule at all without a framework in which to rule?

No.

No, you are incorrect. Simply saying "majority rule" could mean anything; including benevolent despotism with a leader supported by "the majority".

Democracy (rule of the people, remember) has at least the implication of a fair hearing of both sides of views, voting on issues or for representatives, and respect for rights of the minority. It's NOT just "the majority wins".

It's rather simplistic to say that democracy = majority rules. It assumes a very basic democratic state.

Take for instance a multi-party state. Party A wants socialism with 35% of the vote, Party B wants socialism with 25% of the vote, and Party C wants unrestricted capitalism with 40% of the vote. Party C wins, despite being in the minority.

In this case, democracy = minority rules.

Jello's right. It depends upon the state framework.

from the Economist link (http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438)

There is no consensus on how to measure democracy, definitions of democracy are contested and there is an ongoing lively debate on the subject. Although the terms “freedom” and “democracy” are often used interchangeably, the two are not synonymous. Democracy can be seen as a set of practices and principles that institutionalise and thus ultimately protect freedom. Even if a consensus on precise definitions has proved elusive, most observers today would agree that, at a minimum, the fundamental features of a democracy include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of minorities and respect for basic human rights. Democracy presupposes equality before the law, due process and political pluralism.

I tend to agree with this. Accordingly, it is not democratic to shoot the minority, IMO

from the Economist link (http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438)



I tend to agree with this. Accordingly, it is not democratic to shoot the minority, IMO

Quite right. Unless of course, the minority consented to be shot, eh?

Quite right. Unless of course, the minority consented to be shot, eh?Quite another issue. :p Still, people's right to death is not very well protected. So it is not entirely clear whether consent would make a difference.

Wrong. Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) is not simply people casting their votes. It is a set of several conditions.

No, I'm right. Democracy is a belief in the arbitrary power of the masses in the form of an abstract (as opposed to personal sovereignty), in which law is subsequent, as opposed to anterior, to authority. Because of its views on the law, it is inherently tyrannical; the only difference between 'democracies' (i.e. liberal democracies) and 'dictatorships' (i.e. illiberal democracies in which the masses have become dominated by the misinformation of one party of particular interests) is the status of liberal custom.

(Mini-essay rant. Ignore unless you're a fan of my stuff. Selective quoting of this post in answer is fine by me.)

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?

Yes, it would.

But I have enough faith in people that I believe that given such "majority-tyrannical" power they would not use it that way.

Say we all voted to re-enslave black people, obviously taking the vote off them in the process. (Killing a minority has the same effect, removing them from the electoral roll.) Suppose our little 'pure' democracy was not stamped underfoot by the UN for doing that, and not crippled by sanctions.

Now, in every second house we have a slave to do the cleaning and cooking. We're all better off aren't we? Apart from the minority we just enslaved, of course.

But we're also, as individuals, made more insecure. Those of us that are gay know that we're a minority too. What if the country decides that factory work should be done by slaves too ... it will be us next! So us gays would vote NOT to enslave blacks, simply to protect ourselves. Even quite dumb people can see the danger of an infinite regress -- when the minority are gone, or disenfranchised, won't we do the same thing to some other minority? Who is really sure they're in the middle of the herd, that they won't eventually be the vulnerable one at the fringes?

And this scenario gets us to the nub of the matter: there is no absolute majority for extreme government action. We won't give an imperfect government the tools to properly implement our will, because we don't trust it to actually do our will. And we're afraid of drastic change, because it is unpredictable.

This could be dubbed the Average Joe Fallacy. The people who really do think they're average, that most people are just like them and recognize the same basic virtues ... are actually a minority. Once the assumptions are out in the open, a lot of those who were allies when it was Us against Them actually split away.

All drastic measures of representative governments have been unpopular before being implemented, it's a leap of faith by the relatively cunning and well-informed leaders. "They're going to love it once they can't undo it."

Another example: if an absolute majority of Americans were in favour of glassing Afghanistan (or Saudi Arabia!) a few days after the WTC atrocity, how would Americans go about doing that? Before the missiles were even armed, it would occur to someone that Russia might object to the fallout, might just glass something upwind of a heavily populated part of the States just to show the US what it's like. The vengeful minority would split within hours into the "nuke and be damned" camp, and the "just nuke the terrorists in the hills" camp, rather than over-riding the moderate minority who want to just take it easy and cool off for a few days.

Bringing us to another consideration: absolute, rule-of-the-majority democracy in which country? Drastic action is an option not available to most countries, they are in a balance of power with their neighbours. Minorities have allies abroad, and they have the option of guerrilla warfare which could be very unpleasant for the majority.

It's my feeling that the disproportionate and economy-dominating military of the US would never have arisen in a true democracy. So the second scenario probably isn't possible, such concentrated power (military) is only compatible with a powerful leadership.

In order to make really big decisions on behalf of their country, citizens would need to all be far better informed. With power comes responsibility. The great unwashed masses would no more kill a minority or glass another country out of spite, than the relatively talented and well-informed politicians of our current system would.

In fact, it's my feeling that with such power would come humbleness, a realization of human fallibility, which the inflated egos of politicians cannot match.

Just wondering what democracy is all about.

I point to the Roman Forum, where any citizen could speak and a vote was taken. Worked great (admittedly with limited suffrage) when Rome was a city and anyone could walk to the forum, ceased to work at all as it grew so big that loot was more important than the suffering of foreigners.

Direct, absolute democracy works great in small groups. The most eloquent and those with the most external bargaining power (money to offer others for their vote, for instance) hold disproportionate power, but there's legitimacy to that quite unrelated to the power of lobbies in representative democracy. In 'true' democracy, nothing can be done in secret.

I think we have a problem imagining government without individuals to govern. As we develop artificial intelligence, we might find a way to implement the will of the majority directly, but we will have to rethink what government IS, and quite possibly allow for more than one control structure at once (an economic government, a social government, a military government, etc).

(poll due(is it pretentious to say 'due'? (or to say 'pretentious?(or to use serial brackets?))))

(a hundred posts in this is irrelevant(or is it?(or is it futile to ask?(and yes, it's damn ugly!))))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOuumGX-6uc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOuumGX-6uc

No, I'm right. Democracy is a belief in the arbitrary power of the masses in the form of an abstract (as opposed to personal sovereignty), Democracy is a form of personal sovereignty.

in which law is subsequent, as opposed to anterior, to authority.Law (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law) is inherently subsequent to authority.

Democracy is a form of personal sovereignty.

Disagree. There is nothing to 'stop' citizens from willingly removing their own sovereignty. If a man chooses to be in a cage, he is free.

*snip, did not watch*

*snip, did not watch*

Don't do that. This is a forum, we say stuff, not just link.

Read the stickies at the top of the NSG thread page.

I misunderstood the question, I voted no but I meant to vote yes.

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?

Just wondering what democracy is all about.



Democracy is about the WHOLE "demos" holding the sovereignity, not just a part. This means that if you shoot a part of the "demos" (in this case, the minority) you're assaulting the government itself, hence you're committing treason.

This is why democracies have constitutions and fundamental rights granted.


(Of course, if you can shoot the minority, soon you'll have no "demos" anymore - just two men who cannot achieve a majority when debating.)

Democracy is about the WHOLE demo holding the sovereignity, not just a part. This means that if you shoot a part of the demo (in this case, the minority) you're assaulting the government itself, hence you're committing treason.

There is something wrong about that, and I think it might be to do with limiting the power of the majority.

Place one limitation on what the people can vote to do, and you make a joke of the whole process. By what authority, if not by the people, are ...

constitutions and fundamental rights granted.

?

(Of course, if you can shoot the minority, soon you'll have no "demos" anymore - just two men who cannot achieve a majority when debating.)

We have to trust the people to see that for themselves. As I said in my long post, even an idiot can see the danger of an infinite regress.

Disagree. There is nothing to 'stop' citizens from willingly removing their own sovereignty. If a man chooses to be in a cage, he is free.At which point there is no more sovereignty, and therefore no democracy.

For me, most of the arguments, in and of themselves, are flawed. There is no form of government where the majority in power could not choose to execute the minority. Please explain the situation whereby instituting government would eliminate the rule of power, or the ability of a minority to make equally wrong decisions. Actually, requiring the majority would appear to relinquish the perception of personal gain related to a questionable decision.

For me, the question is "Do you want a citizenship that is, by design, not involved in the decision making process, or do want to implement a process whereby citizens are, by design, involved in the decision making process, but can choose by free will to abstain?" Certainly, lazy, uninformed citizens will abuse each process.

The only concern I would have with a true democracy would be the ability to make emergency decisions in a timely and accurate manner. The rest of the arguments appear to be realistically possible with any government.

Democracy is a form of personal sovereignty.

No, it's not. Democracy is the majority subjugating the law to their arbitrary whims. At its worse, when particular interests establish a dominant party to manipulate the masses through hysteria, it is the worst tyrant imaginable.

Law (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law) is inherently subsequent to authority.

Wrong. That you believe that law is subsequent to authority, and that this concept is at all liberal, is both intensely ironic and grotesque. Law is antecedent to authority because the just authority is that which renders each their due as according to law. If law is simply subsequent to authority, then law is nothing more than the arbitrary whims of a person who has seized control of power. There is no safety in such a wretched system as you conceive.

No, it's not. Democracy is the majority subjugating the law to their arbitrary whims. At its worse, when particular interests establish a dominant party to manipulate the masses through hysteria, it is the worst tyrant imaginable.No, it is the individual expressing their own opinion, and as such is inseparable from personal sovereignty.

Wrong. That you believe that law is subsequent to authority, and that this concept is at all liberal, is both intensely ironic and grotesque. Law is antecedent to authority because the just authority is that which renders each their due as according to law. If law is simply subsequent to authority, then law is nothing more than the arbitrary whims of a person who has seized control of power. There is no safety in such a wretched system as you conceive.The just authority (if there is such a thing) creates laws which render each their due; since what each deserves much be taken into account, the law can't be an arbitrary whim.

[QUOTE=BunnySaurus Bugsii;13304648]But we're also, as individuals, made more insecure. Those of us that are gay know that we're a minority too. What if the country decides that factory work should be done by slaves too ... it will be us next! So us gays would vote NOT to enslave blacks, simply to protect ourselves. Even quite dumb people can see the danger of an infinite regress -- when the minority are gone, or disenfranchised, won't we do the same thing to some other minority? Who is really sure they're in the middle of the herd, that they won't eventually be the vulnerable one at the fringes?

And this scenario gets us to the nub of the matter: there is no absolute majority for extreme government action. We won't give an imperfect government the tools to properly implement our will, because we don't trust it to actually do our will. And we're afraid of drastic change, because it is unpredictable. [QUOTE]

But this isn't true. I point you to the massive popular support for the National Socialists in Germany, the Soviets in Russia, the Communists in China and Castro in Cuba. Can you name any dictator who has risen to power (save by foriegn influense) but my acting for 'the greater good'? Freedom dies to roaring applause.

While in theory we should realise that giving Government power to oppress others means it'll oppress us in stead, in practise people don't. They just know that abortion is wrong, or science has shown blacks to be infereor, or that gypsies are theives. They want their views put across. Any form of law, which enforces behaviour on others, is the majority forcing it's will on the minority. Mass murder is extention.

Nor can you hide behind constitutions: can they be changed by the majority? If so, they are no defense from the book-burners. If not, then they are arbitrary authority, and you have yourself a despot (unless they're very minamalist. In this case it may not be unjust, but it's still not democratic)

No, it is the individual expressing their own opinion, and as such is inseparable from personal sovereignty.

No, it's not. If you are on the losing side of the silly competition which dictates that having more people on your side magically makes you correct, then you most certainly are not expressing your own opinion when they change the law to fuck you over.

The just authority (if there is such a thing) creates laws which render each their due; since what each deserves much be taken into account, the law can't be an arbitrary whim.

No, law is not a creation of the whims of authority. This definition of law is based upon statist legislative law, and not that of real, i.e. customary, law which arises voluntarily. If you say that what is the due of each is merely what the authority believes it to be, then it is nothing more than that authority's arbitrary will (perception, after all, is not reality.)

Rather, law is the insurance that each is rendered his due, and as such it also determines that authority must uphold it regardless of whether or not they wish to follow it. As it is not based upon the whims of authority but rather guides them towards rendering each their due, it is not arbitrary but rational.

I hope you realize that legislative law, i.e. the idea that law is subsequent to authority, has only arisen in recent times and grown along with the state, the greatest abberation in law. I hope you will reject this faulty notion of law and embrace a more liberal one than legislation.

There is something wrong about that, and I think it might be to do with limiting the power of the majority.

Place one limitation on what the people can vote to do, and you make a joke of the whole process. By what authority, if not by the people, are ...


You miss the point.
Voting isn't the essence of democracy; it's just a simple and hopefully bloodless method of taking decisions on controversial issues.
The essence of democracy is the power of the whole demos; the whole demos defines some rules to take decisions; the last method you use is voting, thus forming a majority and a minority.

Some things, however, like fundamental rights, cannot be subjected to controversy. Life is a fundamental right. Respect of the minority because it is a part of the demos is a fundamental value; else you don't have a democracy, you have a tyranny (even if a tyranny by majority, but by this rule, Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's CCCP were democracies, don't you think so?). Even being a democracy cannot be subjected to controversy: a majority cannot vote to end the democratic form.

This is the consequence of Goedel's theorem: for any given set of logical items (better, noumena), you need a metaset (fundamental rights, constitution, axioms... should be axiomata) to justify it, because a set of noumena cannot justify itself completely.

You need to have a metademocratic level of laws (the constitution) to have a democracy; the justification, the essence, the internal functioning of the democracy is granted by this metademocratic level - which, of course, is separated from democracy itself, and doesn't abide to the rules thereof.

You need to have a metademocratic level of laws (the constitution) to have a democracy; the justification, the essence, the internal functioning of the democracy is granted by this metademocratic level - which, of course, is separated from democracy itself, and doesn't abide to the rules thereof.

So a democracy without a codified constitution is not a democracy? Say hypothetically the UK got rid of the monarchy but continued in the same manner it effectively does currently it wouldn't be a democracy?

I hope you realize that legislative law, i.e. the idea that law is subsequent to authority, has only arisen in recent times and grown along with the state, the greatest abberation in law. I hope you will reject this faulty notion of law and embrace a more liberal one than legislation.

What utter rot.

Not only has "legislative" law, true law been around for well over two thousand years, but the concept of the state predates that by at least as long again.

True law dates back to the Roman Republic, and to the actions of the people of Rome. They demanded that the laws be displayed, so that all could know of and follow them, and that they would be enforced upon all, equally. While various codes of law, such as Hammurabi's Code, had existed prior, they had existed and been enforced only at the whim of the ruler - who was himself immune to them.

True law is the only guarantee of true freedom. By the knowledge of what is lawful and what is not, and the enforcement of those laws upon all equally, the individual is protected from the whims of the mighty and the uncaring organs of government. Customary law, or tradition, is invariably merely a means of controlling the populace to the credit of the dictators of custom, the powerful and the corrupt.

............
Some things, however, like fundamental rights, cannot be subjected to controversy. Life is a fundamental right. Respect of the minority because it is a part of the demos is a fundamental value; else you don't have a democracy, you have a tyranny (even if a tyranny by majority, but by this rule, Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's CCCP were democracies, don't you think so?). Even being a democracy cannot be subjected to controversy: a majority cannot vote to end the democratic form.
................

Wow. Super-well put.

*worships Risottia (briefly)*

Democracy is the power of the masses, literally. Ergo, if the masses decide to line up and shoot the minority, then that is in line with the ideal of "pure" democracy.

Democracy... Fuck yeah...How wonderful.

Democracy is the power of the masses, literally. Ergo, if the masses decide to line up and shoot the minority, then that is in line with the ideal of "pure" democracy.

Democracy... Fuck yeah...How wonderful.

That's only because you think of people in terms of 'minorities' and as individuals rather than as a whole coherent community, their is no 'personal freedoms', their is only social responsibility.

That's only because you think of people in terms of 'minorities' and as individuals rather than as a whole coherent community, their is no 'personal freedoms', their is only social responsibility.In your opinion, what is the relationship between human rights and democracy?

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?

I have an idea! Let's decide this democratically.

Question: "So do you think groups of people should be able to be killed by majority vote?"

Most people: "Hmm... no. Because I'm sometimes going to be in the minority, and I wouldn't want that."

Measure failed. So much for that.

That's only because you think of people in terms of 'minorities' and as individuals rather than as a whole coherent community, their is no 'personal freedoms', their is only social responsibility.

demo kratos... demokratia.... democracy... Power of the masses. Nothing about social responsibility implied therein. Different philsophy.

So a democracy without a codified constitution is not a democracy? Say hypothetically the UK got rid of the monarchy but continued in the same manner it effectively does currently it wouldn't be a democracy?I believe he/she/it referred to a constitution as an example of the necessary metademocratic law. Other norms might fill the gap; such as established societal norms, customary law, the ten commandments or other similar sets of values derived from religion(s), public morality, ethics, etc...

I might of course be wrong. But this is what I think. A constitution is maybe only descriptive of those values in a given society, rather than prescriptive. Reactive rather than proactive. So the values, the, metademocratic law, may be in force whether codified or not. Codification of those values gives them more staying power, though.

That's why I like Constitutional Republics better.

Plus, we always have other moderate nations to keep those fringe nations in check.

Voting isn't the essence of democracy; it's just a simple and hopefully bloodless method of taking decisions on controversial issues.

Democracy in general can be described that way. But representative democracy isn't really, except the rare incident of a referendum. Rather, at each election, the people must choose between one package of policies and another. In that respect, I like proportionally-represented democracy, because the voter CAN vote for a party with only one policy (ie, committed to making just one decision.) But even then, the voters don't get to decide what compromises to make, to get that decision made the way they want.

The essence of democracy is the power of the whole demos; the whole demos defines some rules to take decisions; the last method you use is voting, thus forming a majority and a minority.

"The power of the whole demos." Let's imagine that government was taken away in its entirety. To make this more plausible, remove the actual public servants, military personel, judiciary -- shoot them for instance (because lacking a written law, these people would still be respected as authority.) Now what power does the demos have? At first there is some looting (individual power devolving to those without practice in its use) but that would quickly give way to gangs and bigger gangs, and almost certainly a dictatorship.

This is not so much a criticism as a query. I don't understand what you mean by "the power of the demos." I have the definition of the word, but I don't see how the individual powers to do this or that, of individuals, can be seen as one thing, a power inherent in all of them.

In a sense "government is an expression of the power of the demos" is a circular definition.

Some things, however, like fundamental rights, cannot be subjected to controversy.

But of course they can! They are, all the time, in any debate over changing the law.

Life is a fundamental right.

No, it's not. Governments can and do take life, and when you make the qualification "unless the citizen abrogates their rights by breaking x law" ... that's no longer a fundamental right.

Respect of the minority because it is a part of the demos is a fundamental value; else you don't have a democracy, you have a tyranny (even if a tyranny by majority, but by this rule, Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's CCCP were democracies, don't you think so?).

Only Italy qualifies, and not after the Acerbo law. At the point Hitler quashed the other parties in government and began shutting down the free press, the NSDAP was still a minority party. It makes no sense to me to talk about the popularity of dictators, since that isn't measured against anything (an opposition.) It's like "would you prefer honey or jam? There isn't any jam, btw."

Even being a democracy cannot be subjected to controversy: a majority cannot vote to end the democratic form.

How do you stop them? A piece of paper they can rewrite? Externally applied force? You are arguing ideals, I think. Sadly, it's all too easy for a government (perceiving a need for 'emergency powers' for instance) to gain majority support to overturn these "rights."

This is the consequence of Goedel's theorem: for any given set of logical items (better, noumena), you need a metaset (fundamental rights, constitution, axioms... should be axiomata) to justify it, because a set of noumena cannot justify itself completely.

You need to have a metademocratic level of laws (the constitution) to have a democracy; the justification, the essence, the internal functioning of the democracy is granted by this metademocratic level - which, of course, is separated from democracy itself, and doesn't abide to the rules thereof.

That's interesting, but it directly contradicts what you said earlier, "The essence of democracy is the power of the whole demos; the whole demos defines some rules to take decisions."

Democracy is not a perfect system, but then again, there is no perfect goverment. Democracy is still better that dictatorship and the other forms of goverment.

I do have a preference of my own, but the mechanism to implement it hasn't been invented yet.


Get rid of the Parliaments, electorates, and representatives. We don't need a big building somewhere to hold a debate, and we don't need 'leaders' with real power.
I'd still have parties (you can't prevent them forming, it's free association and/or conspiracy). The parties, though, would essentially lobby the electorate. They'd be more like thinktanks, who would present policies to be voted on.
I'd have a public service, defined by laws, with the role of implementing policies. It would still be a heirarchy, but top-level decisions would be open and public, and subject to voter choice.
Any decision could be put to the vote at any time. While this might seem hectic, vexatious and trivial decisions could be prevented by requiring some level of participation. Half the people don't care, the decision isn't made.
At first, I'd have a constitution, with limits (perhaps a requirement for decisive votes over six months) on changing that constitution, but eventually that too could change. No limits on the power of the vote, eventually.
Voting would have be very easy, a matter of selecting one of the options and pressing "vote." Think how easy it is to vote on an NSG poll: that easy.


While it might seem that this system would be very fragile, the most likely way for it to break would be a vote of "let's go back to what we had before" so nothing would really be lost by trying it.

And I think the majority of people really are pretty sensible. People don't generally burn their own houses down, or otherwise make really bad decisions in their own interests. Once people realize that their vote (and their voice to advocate directly to other voters for what they believe in) has so much power, that they don't have to trust ANYONE with their right to make decisions ... the result will be a far more responsible approach to government. We'd own it, and like we treat our property or our personal decisions, we'd be pretty responsible with it.

In this system, there would be no government but the people. There would be advocates, and there would be beaurocrats, but the two would be seperate roles.

I'm anticipating criticism on the matter of criminal law. We might have to shoot some lawyers early in the process, and live with some really dumb laws until we've all developed competence to write laws we are prepared to follow ourselves. But the stakes are very high, and a law which reflects the majority view of right and wrong (not the other way around) is the eventual crowning glory of a system which puts all power with the voter.

Democracy = Tyranny of George Bush

I have an idea! Let's decide this democratically.

Question: "So do you think groups of people should be able to be killed by majority vote?"



NSG: Fuck yeah! :D

46 to 26 at this point. I guess we'd be a bit more circumspect if we were actually going to DO that.

What utter rot.

Not only has "legislative" law, true law been around for well over two thousand years, but the concept of the state predates that by at least as long again.

I was speaking in reference to western Europe, in which customary law under such systems as the hundredsmann was slowly eroded by royal edict and the legislation of kings and parliaments, which only really appeared recently. I will not deny that such concepts have existed longer than that, but the point remains that legislative law arose with the absolute and arbitrary powers of the state.

True law dates back to the Roman Republic, and to the actions of the people of Rome. They demanded that the laws be displayed, so that all could know of and follow them, and that they would be enforced upon all, equally. While various codes of law, such as Hammurabi's Code, had existed prior, they had existed and been enforced only at the whim of the ruler - who was himself immune to them.

Wrong, Roman law was not legislative law - it was common, i.e. customary, law, that was accumulated from countless decisions of jurists. The display of such laws is no more their creation than the citation of Alice in Wonderland means that you yourself wrote said book. Whereas other rulers were able to rule by fiat, without regard to precedent.*

True law is the only guarantee of true freedom. By the knowledge of what is lawful and what is not, and the enforcement of those laws upon all equally, the individual is protected from the whims of the mighty and the uncaring organs of government. Customary law, or tradition, is invariably merely a means of controlling the populace to the credit of the dictators of custom, the powerful and the corrupt.

Again, customary law is compiled upon the precedents of thousands of jurists, NOT the fiat of the organs of the government. One could not use customary law to be a dictator, as one would have to use the accepted precedents of others in order to do so, and no one would accept being tyrannized. Please read William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England on the benefit of customary law versus statist legislative law.

Edit: *For example, the Magna Carta wasn't legislative law, as the people who forced King John to sign it did not want him to make new laws. They simply wanted him to recognize existing rights that John was ignoring.

NSG: Fuck yeah! :D

They said it was undemocratic to prohibit it, not that it should be done.

NSG is not exactly enthusiastically supportive of democracy.

They said it was undemocratic to prohibit it, not that it should be done.

Did I read this wrong?

Question: "So do you think groups of people should be able to be killed by majority vote?"

It's not quite the same thing, but nor is it "Do you think groups of people should be killed by majority vote?"

"Able to" is the opposite case to "prohibited from" ... no?

(Hey, OP: phrasing the question as a double negative wasn't so smart, huh?)

NSG is not exactly enthusiastically supportive of democracy.

The poll suggests that, yes. If it was a binding proposal to allow qualified posters to vote other posters off the board, I fancy the result would go the other way, very strongly.

That's actually my point a few posts up. We treat democracy as a game because we don't have enough political power to take ourselves seriously.

If the majority votes that the minority should be lined up and shot, would it be undemocratic not to?

By Definition: Yes
By Reasonable Judgment: No

No, it's not. If you are on the losing side of the silly competition which dictates that having more people on your side magically makes you correct, then you most certainly are not expressing your own opinion when they change the law to fuck you over.The process of democracy does not determine what is correct, only what decision will be enacted.
Being "on the losing side" is rarely, if ever, perpetual. Just because you don't get your way 100% of the time doesn't mean your personal sovereignty is being violated.

No, law is not a creation of the whims of authority. This definition of law is based upon statist legislative law, and not that of real, i.e. customary, law which arises voluntarily.Assuming this is the case, then the people with authority have are the people exercising personal sovereignty in coming to the agreement. Because these people have the authority to come to agreements, their agreements are considered to be valid.

If you say that what is the due of each is merely what the authority believes it to be, then it is nothing more than that authority's arbitrary will (perception, after all, is not reality.)What is the due of each is not merely what the authority believes it to be; the consideration of what each is due is separate from law...

Rather, law is the insurance that each is rendered his due,...As you acknowledge yourself.

It's not quite the same thing, but nor is it "Do you think groups of people should be killed by majority vote?"

"Able to" is the opposite case to "prohibited from" ... no?

I included "able to" because the abstract political question is about capacity (what is and is not legal).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I included "able to" because the abstract political question is about capacity (what is and is not legal).

It seemed to me that you restated the OP's question, more plainly. And gave the answer most of us gave: "in theory, yes, but in practice they wouldn't."

I argued before against any such "legal" restriction on the power of the majority, saying that I didn't believe it is necessary since the majority can see that it isn't in their interests. (I've reconsidered, they'd do it for very small minorities like convicted child rapists.)

I'll quote where I said that, noting that we appear to agree:
Even quite dumb people can see the danger of an infinite regress -- when the minority are gone, or disenfranchised, won't we do the same thing to some other minority? Who is really sure they're in the middle of the herd, that they won't eventually be the vulnerable one at the fringes?


I might have to give up this dual personality thing, it confuses even me. ;)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

The majority are basically good. A sort of "strong Democracy" which defines what is good by the majority view (and yes, it's confusing because I almost never agree with the majority view on anything.)

The process of democracy does not determine what is correct, only what decision will be enacted.
Being "on the losing side" is rarely, if ever, perpetual. Just because you don't get your way 100% of the time doesn't mean your personal sovereignty is being violated.

Indeed, democracy does not determine what is correct, only what is enacted. This is shown in its treatment of the law as subsequent, rather than antecedent, to their authority. Thus, rules are enforced not because they are just, but because the one with authority finds them advantageous.

And as for not losing 100% of the time meaning that you are not a loser, I find this to be terribly wrong. If I could have been punched 17 times, but only got punched 16, does this mean that my personal sovereignty hasn't really been violated because something worse could have happened to me? Obviously not. So it is with the juntas of special interests that compose democracy; just because one junta isn't successful in injuring another with all of its coercive rules and regulations, doesn't mean that those it has managed to harm are on par with them. Especially considering that when one gets the majority on their side to inflict harm upon the opposing particular interests, it is their turn to have their personal sovereignty violated. (And, as democracy degenerates into one-party rule, there is not even the assurance of not being on the losing side 100% of the time.)

Also, when I was talking about personal sovereignty, I was talking about sovereignty being embodied in a trusted person with natural authority (like the tonowi of the Kapauku Papuans, who ruled because they were wise and their opinions trusted), not the sovereignty of an abstract being (The United States, France, the Volk, etc.)

Assuming this is the case, then the people with authority have are the people exercising personal sovereignty in coming to the agreement. Because these people have the authority to come to agreements, their agreements are considered to be valid.

This, of course, begs the question as to whether the authority is just. In democracy, those selected by a strong-enough junta of particular interests can override the wishes of all other particular interests. This culminates in a party machine, which advocates a group of distant political figure under one banner using man's desire for conformity and his fears to their advantage, at which point one dominant group of particular interests is in permanent power over all else.

Rousseau realized this dilemma; in fact, he specifically stated that a majority of particular interests, near-sighted and subjective as they are, is NOT the general interest, which is the objective good for all regardless of one's perception might be. That is why he opposed legislation through such organs as tribunes, which would rule by fiat, as it would corrupt the objective law into a bludgeon for certain interests to take power. (In his system, the objective law would be observed and enforced by an aristocracy of natural authority which would have the leisure to philosophize and the independence to not be forced to bend their judgements to the subjective particular interests of other.)

What is the due of each is not merely what the authority believes it to be; the consideration of what each is due is separate from law...

...As you acknowledge yourself.

You took my statement out of context; antecedent law is the insurance that each is rendered his due, whereas subsequent law is the coercion of those in power. One must render each their due under the law as it is an ordinance of reason binding upon all rational beings, not because certain people have the privilege of being able to force their subjective will and perceptions upon others.

It seemed to me that you restated the OP's question, more plainly. And gave the answer most of us gave: "in theory, yes, but in practice they wouldn't."

No, even in theory it's perfectly democratic to prohibit killing a minority. This is especially true if the prohibition is itself a piece of majority-supported legislation, but I would argue that even if it isn't, the prohibition is still consistent with democracy.

Restricting universal suffrage is undemocratic almost by definition. Why should we be less stringent when it comes to actually killing the minority?

No, democracy in its foundation is about people ruling themselves--all the people. Going with the majority is just a procedure to help us meet this end. If the majority is subjugating the minority, that is not "democratic," because the people have ceased to rule themselves: one portion of the people rules over all.

That is why a commitment to democracy does not only not demand that we relinquish minority protections, but in fact it demands the opposite: that we institute them and abide by them. We must adopt, as democrats, the mix of procedures that best approximate collective self-determination. One of those procedures may be majority vote. But it need not be the only one.

Edit: For an example case of the principle here, consider the case of same-sex marriage. If we permit the majority to prohibit it, we have in effect permitted them to deny other people rights: we have accepted a system where the majority imposes its will on the minority, rather than one where the people rule themselves. The key element here is the lack of equality under law: if we decide to restrict all marriage, that is one thing, because we have decided as a society that we should not be permitted to marry. But if we decide to restrict gay marriage specifically, then we have decided as a majority that they should not be permitted to marry. That is not self-determination, that is imposition. So if we believe in democracy, we must support equality under law.

This kind of reasoning gets really complicated fast, especially when you bring in class into it (can the poor decide about the rich?), but that's the basic idea.

I argued before against any such "legal" restriction on the power of the majority, saying that I didn't believe it is necessary since the majority can see that it isn't in their interests.

We need such restrictions because otherwise we move back to the specific. If as a society we cannot make and enforce the law "No ruling majority government may kill the minority" even so far as to stop a majority in a specific case, then the rule is useless: because I already cannot trust in my safety when I am in the minority, I have no reason to not oppress the minority when my side is in power (assuming that I am acting purely out of self-interest.)

The same effect can perhaps be had by the force of custom and precedent, but just to be safe I prefer the legal restriction.

(and yes, it's confusing because I almost never agree with the majority view on anything.)

That is the first sign of democratic health: that all (or at least most) particular individuals are routinely in the minority, and when in the majority, they cannot go as far as they would like.

It means that we have not slided into oligarchy, that we do not get our way disproportionately.

Hang on. We do not have universal suffrage. So we're "undemocratic" already, right?

I mean, in any "democratic" country I can think of, serving felons cannot vote.
I find that undemocratic.

In countries with the death penalty, we actually kill a minority -- those who have broken certain laws and been properly tried.

EDIT: The point of this last was "as per the OP, we claim the right to kill minorities in practice"
It wasn't directed to the principle, which is why I decided to delete it.

(In his system, the objective law would be observed and enforced by an aristocracy of natural authority which would have the leisure to philosophize and the independence to not be forced to bend their judgements to the subjective particular interests of other.)

How exactly do you get that from Rousseau?

How exactly do you get that from Rousseau?

You don't remember the part where he practically says that the ancient republics were successful because they had slaves to do their work, so they could concentrate on civic virtue? (He doesn't say it explicitly, but he does. I don't advocate slavery, but I do think some level of independence and leisure is necessary in authority.)

Hang on. We do not have universal suffrage. So we're "undemocratic" already, right?

It's a matter of degree. It perhaps means that we are imperfectly democratic.

I mean, in any "democratic" country I can think of, serving felons cannot vote.
I find that undemocratic.

I agree.

In countries with the death penalty, we actually kill a minority -- those who have broken certain laws and been properly tried.

But this is perfectly democratic (though not necessarily just.)

We can easily as a society democratically institute the policy "If any of us commits this particular crime, that person shall be put to death." We are deciding the laws by which we must abide--we are ruling ourselves.

Now, if instead we institute the policy "Black-haired people shall be put to death", unless we ourselves are black-haired we have not acted democratically: we are not ruling ourselves, we are ruling others.

It is not, of course, always so simple. If we institute a policy like "If any of us engages in same-sex intercourse, he or she shall be put to death", whether or not we are acting democratically depends on our basis for the act: if our reason is public, something we would recognize as binding whether we are gay or straight or anything else (like, say, "same-sex intercourse wrecks the social fabric"), then we are behaving democratically, but if our reason is private and specific to our partial interest ("I hate fags"), then we are not.

You don't remember the part where he practically says that the ancient republics were successful because they had slaves to do their work, so they could concentrate on civic virtue?

What's the connection to democracy?

Rousseau advocated the people deciding on legislation themselves, and elected magistrates enforcing it... not an aristocracy by "natural authority" recognizing some "objective law" beyond the general will.

What's the connection to democracy?

Rousseau advocated the people deciding on legislation themselves, and elected magistrates enforcing them... not an aristocracy by "natural authority" recognizing some "objective law" beyond the general will.

If the implicit meaning of what you say is true, then he would have advocated the legislative tribunes. Which, in fact, he didn't, as he felt that the manipulation of power by the subjective desires of the particular interests would only result in ruin and defy the objective general will (remember, Rousseau was VERY specific in saying that there is a difference between an amalgam of particular interests, which are limited in their rightness by their particularity, and the general will, which is the desire to render each their due and is thus innately detached from raw majoritarian legislative democracy. His attitudes reflected those of aristocratic Geneva, after all.)

Unfortunately, his ideas have been 'simplified', so to speak, so that conclusions that depend upon the nominal meaning of his words are accepted when his actual meaning is quite different. Rousseau, quite simply, believed in such an aristocracy because they would not be dependent upon the demands of particular interests that are only after their own subjective good, and would have the leisure to be focused on liberty over security.

If the implicit meaning of what you say is true, then he would have advocated the legislative tribunes. Which, in fact, he didn't, as he felt that the manipulation of power by the subjective desires of the particular interests would only result in ruin and defy the objective general will

Well, there are two elements that you could be talking about, but neither help your argument.

Rousseau was against putting legislative power into the hands of representatives because he argued that they would be partial to their private interest at the expense of the general will, but this is not an argument against democracy; it is an argument against representative democracy.

Rousseau was also against putting executive and judicial power into the hands of the Sovereign (the united body of the people), because the general will must always deal with the general case, rather than specific applications. But legislative power remains in its hands.

Rousseau, quite simply, believed in such an aristocracy because they would not be dependent upon the demands of particular interests that are only after their own subjective good, and would have the leisure to be focused on liberty over security.

Yes, he believed in an "aristocracy" of sorts. Possessed of executive power. Not legislative. And an elected aristocracy at that.

Well, there are two elements that you could be talking about, but neither help your argument.

Rousseau was against putting legislative power into the hands of representatives because he argued that they would be partial to their private interest at the expense of the general will, but this is not an argument against democracy; it is an argument against representative democracy.

Democracy inherentlly believes in the arbitrary will of the people, i.e. the idea that the law is subsequent to the authority of the people. But if you were to have such a system in which the law is antecedent to the authority of the people (which is strikingly similar to the councils of the kings in the feudal period, in which delegates did not propose new laws but defended the established rights of their constituents), then I would be fine with it. But obviously such a council system is not democratic as it does not presuppose an abstract being with sovereignty ('the people') but personal sovereignty through the delegation of the duty to render each constituent their due.

Rousseau was also against putting executive and judicial power into the hands of the Sovereign (the united body of the people), because the general will must always deal with the general case, rather than specific applications. But legislative power remains in its hands.

But his meaning of legislative power is different from mine. He means legislative power as in the power that ensures that the antecedent law is upheld, not the power that makes subsequent law. Ignoring this principle has resulted in unfortunate interpretations of Rousseau.

Yes, he believed in an "aristocracy" of sorts. Possessed of executive power. Not legislative. And an elected aristocracy at that.

Elections are not necessarily democratic; see corporate boards of directors, the election of German emperors, the Curia of the Papacy, etc.

I had to read this a few times, and my head is hurting. Sorry for the delay!

No, even in theory it's perfectly democratic to prohibit killing a minority. This is especially true if the prohibition is itself a piece of majority-supported legislation, but I would argue that even if it isn't, the prohibition is still consistent with democracy.

I think I see it now. There are two grey areas: what do we recognize as "the people" (does it include felons? non-citizens? children?) and what do we mean by "government" (is killing people within the role of government?)

Restricting universal suffrage is undemocratic almost by definition. Why should we be less stringent when it comes to actually killing the minority?

Yes, killing doesn't just disenfranchise, it silences the victim as well.
(Negates their role in economy and culture ... and even more than that. Killing is an almost transcendental concept, well beyond the legitimacy of an imperfect government.)
I cannot disgree ... though something bugs me here.

No, democracy in its foundation is about people ruling themselves--all the people. Going with the majority is just a procedure to help us meet this end. If the majority is subjugating the minority, that is not "democratic," because the people have ceased to rule themselves: one portion of the people rules over all.

Hmm. Without the presumption of "ruling" though .... This is a bit like the thorny old question of "free will." Does even one person, alone on a desert island, "rule" themselves? If we can't define that state, what hope for "the people"?

That is why a commitment to democracy does not only not demand that we relinquish minority protections, but in fact it demands the opposite: that we institute them and abide by them. We must adopt, as democrats, the mix of procedures that best approximate collective self-determination. One of those procedures may be majority vote. But it need not be the only one.

Most excellent. I understand this the second read through.

Edit: For an example case of the principle here, consider the case of same-sex marriage. If we permit the majority to prohibit it, we have in effect permitted them to deny other people rights: we have accepted a system where the majority imposes its will on the minority, rather than one where the people rule themselves. The key element here is the lack of equality under law: if we decide to restrict all marriage, that is one thing, because we have decided as a society that we should not be permitted to marry. But if we decide to restrict gay marriage specifically, then we have decided as a majority that they should not be permitted to marry. That is not self-determination, that is imposition. So if we believe in democracy, we must support equality under law.

Agreed, equality under law should be the starting point for any just law. But should it be modified to apply equally if it is found not to?

For instance, we may have a principle that every person is entitled to a fair trial, a part of which is a competent defense. How do we decide what is "competent" defense? A barrister, or the sort of legal team Warren Buffet could afford? We're just going to draw an arbitrary line, and call that "competent defense," aren't we? And do we prohibit the rich from buying a better defense than that?

This kind of reasoning gets really complicated fast, especially when you bring in class into it (can the poor decide about the rich?)

I just did, didn't I? :p

I argued before against any such "legal" restriction on the power of the majority, saying that I didn't believe it is necessary since the majority can see that it isn't in their interests.

We need such restrictions because otherwise we move back to the specific. If as a society we cannot make and enforce the law "No ruling majority government may kill the minority" even so far as to stop a majority in a specific case, then the rule is useless: because I already cannot trust in my safety when I am in the minority, I have no reason to not oppress the minority when my side is in power (assuming that I am acting purely out of self-interest.)

Perhaps we can't trust people to see how this is in their self-interest, but ... it seems clear to me. There is always a minority who 'break the rules' and if there wasn't we'd just make stricter rules. Perhaps this perception that the feeling of being part of a community, a society, depends on excluding someone ... is anathema to some. But it probably deserves it's own thread.

The same effect can perhaps be had by the force of custom and precedent, but just to be safe I prefer the legal restriction.

Fair 'nuf. I think such restrictions probably have a hidden effect -- legitimizing law by making it indispensible to the concept of "the people." It would be simpler if we could discuss democracy without considering law and punishment ... but of course we can't.


(and yes, it's confusing because I almost never agree with the majority view on anything.)
That is the first sign of democratic health: that all (or at least most) particular individuals are routinely in the minority, and when in the majority, they cannot go as far as they would like.

It means that we have not slided into oligarchy, that we do not get our way disproportionately.

Yes. Those who think they are always right and anyone who disagrees must be criminal or insane ... really aren't in the same ballpark as democracy.

It's also why "parties" are undemocratic. I may agree with a party on opposing the death penalty (a minority view in some places at least), but disagree on a right to abortion (a majority view in that same place.) If I am tied to one party or the other, and the only way I can get my way on abortion is to support a policy I disagree with on the death penalty ... I don't have the experience of being in a majority and a minority. Either 'my' party is in power (majority experience) or it's in opposition (minority experience.)

To act decently when democracy gives one the power, one must have an easily apprehended experience of being in a minority. Partisanship makes that difficult, can even lead one to try to create an illusion of being in the majority.

Properly, compromise is made until a policy is decided which does have majority support.

EDIT: I will not be offended if you do not reply. This is a debating forum, and I'm agreeing more than I'm debating. You & Vendee makes a good read!

Democracy inherentlly believes in the arbitrary will of the people, i.e. the idea that the law is subsequent to the authority of the people.

Not necessarily. But certainly Rousseau believed that. He rejected the idea of natural right: everything is subject to the decisions of the Sovereign, with the very important restriction that laws must apply to all.

Law is an expression of the general will: it is therefore necessarily subsequent (like all matters of will), not antecedent.

But his meaning of legislative power is different from mine. He means legislative power as in the power that ensures that the antecedent law is upheld, not the power that makes subsequent law.

No, he doesn't. What gives you that idea? Ensuring that law is upheld is an executive function, not a legislative one. The right of legislation is the right to make laws.

If the majority is subjugating the minority, that is not "democratic," because the people have ceased to rule themselves: one portion of the people rules over all.
The definition of "subjugating" being all-important here. Any decision made by majority vote in which there are opposing viewpoints is one portion of the people ruling over all, or indeed ruling over others (eg by making rules that only apply to some) is basically subjugation.

So unless you start introducing some different sort of measure of exactly what constitutes subjugation, you're making an argument against the practice of majority rule in general. And if you take that away, you've basically put the design of democratic systems back to Square One.

I think I see it now. There are two grey areas: what do we recognize as "the people" (does it include felons? non-citizens? children?)

I could elaborate on this point for a while, but to simplify a little: I would include all of those, though there might be practical difficulties insofar as actually representing their interests.

and what do we mean by "government"

Well, my understanding is that we are speaking of legislative power.

Does even one person, alone on a desert island, "rule" themselves? If we can't define that state, what hope for "the people"?

In the political sense? Yes. She lives only by the laws she creates for herself.

For instance, we may have a principle that every person is entitled to a fair trial, a part of which is a competent defense. How do we decide what is "competent" defense? A barrister, or the sort of legal team Warren Buffet could afford? We're just going to draw an arbitrary line, and call that "competent defense," aren't we? And do we prohibit the rich from buying a better defense than that?

Well, the same idea as before applies here.

Can we democratically say "Everyone is entitled to whatever defense he or she can afford"? Yes, as long as we do not make this decision at the expense of the poor: as long as we can say, "If I were poor, I would still accept this rule."

Is there a procedural rule that guarantees this? Unfortunately, no. The best we can do is prohibit laws that clearly violate equality, that discriminate on arbitrary characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation.)

Perhaps we can't trust people to see how this is in their self-interest, but ... it seems clear to me.

It's not that we can't trust them. It's that it wouldn't actually be in their self-interest.

Basically, we have a Prisoner's Dilemma case here. As long as the other "prisoner" (the majority that opposes my minority) has the power to do as it pleases to me, I have no reason to restrain myself when I am in the majority. I will only restrain myself if I can be guaranteed that the other majority will restrain itself also, and only if I also restrain myself: that is to say, if we can institute a binding rule that no one can subjugate minorities.

If it is not binding, I have no reason to abide by it, because I have no reason to expect that my abiding by it will have any influence when I am in the minority.

It's also why "parties" are undemocratic. I may agree with a party on opposing the death penalty (a minority view in some places at least), but disagree on a right to abortion (a majority view in that same place.) If I am tied to one party or the other, and the only way I can get my way on abortion is to support a policy I disagree with on the death penalty ... I don't have the experience of being in a majority and a minority.

Not here, no. But you are participating in coalition politics. And that, too, is essential to democracy and the protection of minority power--to achieve your own interests, you must help others achieve theirs.

Either 'my' party is in power (majority experience) or it's in opposition (minority experience.)

Right. And if, when my party is in power, it oppresses the minority party, what will stop the opposition from doing the same when it takes power? (If the oppression is so horrific as to destroy the opposition, you still must deal with the factions that will arise after only one party is left.)

Any decision made by majority vote in which there are opposing viewpoints is one portion of the people ruling over all, or indeed ruling over others (eg by making rules that only apply to some) is basically subjugation.

There are two different questions here.

First, are some ruling over all? This question cannot be answered with respect to one particular decision. If the majority/minority relations are constantly shifting with different decisions, then as far as decision-making in general goes all rule over all: democracy is secured. (Especially since we can and do make coalitions: "I'll support this if you support that." So it isn't even a matter of everyone being equally oppressed.)

Second, are the rules only being applied to some? This question can be answered with respect to a particular decision: does the decision apply equally to all, or is it directed only against a specific group? (Obviously, every law has different effects on different people... but is this incidental to the law's foundation, or fundamental to it?)

The definition of "subjugating" being all-important here. Any decision made by majority vote in which there are opposing viewpoints is one portion of the people ruling over all, or indeed ruling over others (eg by making rules that only apply to some) is basically subjugation.

So unless you start introducing some different sort of measure of exactly what constitutes subjugation, you're making an argument against the practice of majority rule in general. And if you take that away, you've basically put the design of democratic systems back to Square One.

If a majority does anything in it's own interests -- ANYTHING -- it could be argued by a minority that they are disadvantaged by that. (Implicitly perhaps: 'what about me?' ... and in practice, since most government actions cost money, explicitly by spending the minority's taxes for something the minority did not want.)

I'm just taking this idea to the absurd extreme ... a government which does anything is not purely democratic! The people cannot rule themselves in the strict sense, except in such small groups that unanimity is possible. :)

First, are some ruling over all? This question cannot be answered with respect to one particular decision.
Why not? If we decide to kill all the black people, that's a one-off decision. We may well disagree on childcare policy next week and completely different blocks are formed.

Is it about how long the effects of the policy last? Well, killing all black people takes a while and might last a long time in a moral sense, but in a practical sense there are few things which last as long as a welfare state too.

Second, are the rules only being applied to some? This question can be answered with respect to a particular decision: does the decision apply equally to all, or is it directed only against a specific group? (Obviously, every law has different effects on different people... but is this incidental to the law's foundation, or fundamental to it?)
Well, how about a specific wealth tax, like in France or Germany? It's a majority imposing some punishment on a specifically targeted minority. So is this subjugation...tyranny even?

I'm just taking this idea to the absurd extreme ... a government which does anything is not purely democratic! The people cannot rule themselves in the strict sense, except in such small groups that unanimity is possible. :)
Precisely. It seems to me that is a fundamental basis for a reasonable argument towards anarchism. Democracy doesn't give freedom, all it does is change you from being on one person's leash, to being on everybody's.

So a democracy without a codified constitution is not a democracy? Say hypothetically the UK got rid of the monarchy but continued in the same manner it effectively does currently it wouldn't be a democracy?

Not necessarily a codified constitution: you may have some fundamental rights and principia granted by a non formally-codified metalevel - anyway this would expone the democracy to some risks.

Scripta manent, verba volant. (What is written remains, what is spoken flies away).

Not necessarily a codified constitution: you may have some fundamental rights and principia granted by a non formally-codified metalevel - anyway this would exponk the democracy to some risks.

Scripta manent, verba volant. (What is written remains, what is spoken flies away).

*smacks Risottia*

You're speaking Latin! Go wash out your mouth.

Indeed, democracy does not determine what is correct, only what is enacted. This is shown in its treatment of the law as subsequent, rather than antecedent, to their authority. Thus, rules are enforced not because they are just, but because the one with authority finds them advantageous.The one? Even critics of democracy acknowledge "the majority" as having authority (of course talk about society doing something or making a decision and many of them will deny such a body exists).

And as for not losing 100% of the time meaning that you are not a loser, I find this to be terribly wrong. If I could have been punched 17 times, but only got punched 16, does this mean that my personal sovereignty hasn't really been violated because something worse could have happened to me? Obviously not.Your personal sovereignty has been violated in this example, but only because of the specific instance (being punched) itself violates your personal sovereignty. The majority of decisions that don't go your way will not violate your personal sovereignty.

So it is with the juntas of special interests that compose democracy; just because one junta isn't successful in injuring another with all of its coercive rules and regulations, doesn't mean that those it has managed to harm are on par with them. Especially considering that when one gets the majority on their side to inflict harm upon the opposing particular interests, it is their turn to have their personal sovereignty violated. (And, as democracy degenerates into one-party rule, there is not even the assurance of not being on the losing side 100% of the time.)Which explains why decisions would be unlikely to be made that actually violate an individual's sovereignty - because the individual that is in the majority now will be in the minority later.

Also, when I was talking about personal sovereignty, I was talking about sovereignty being embodied in a trusted person with natural authority (like the tonowi of the Kapauku Papuans, who ruled because they were wise and their opinions trusted), not the sovereignty of an abstract being (The United States, France, the Volk, etc.)The idea of personal sovereignty is that authority is in each individual, not a specific person with power. It is conceivable that some sovereignty can be delegated to a specific person in power, but this would come subsequent to the establishment of personal sovereignty.

This, of course, begs the question as to whether the authority is just.Which is determined by how the authority came to be in power and the decisions it makes.

You took my statement out of context; antecedent law is the insurance that each is rendered his due, whereas subsequent law is the coercion of those in power. One must render each their due under the law as it is an ordinance of reason binding upon all rational beings, not because certain people have the privilege of being able to force their subjective will and perceptions upon others.One must render each their due under the law because such is the purpose of the law - to maximize justice.

*smacks Risottia*

You're speaking Latin! Go wash out your mouth.

My mother language is a modern form of Latin, aka Italian. If you prefer, we can talk about δημοκρατια in its original language. (It's nice to learn Latin and ancient Greek at high school, eheh!)

Quicquid latine dicitur, altum videtur.

I was speaking in reference to western Europe, in which customary law under such systems as the hundredsmann was slowly eroded by royal edict and the legislation of kings and parliaments, which only really appeared recently. I will not deny that such concepts have existed longer than that, but the point remains that legislative law arose with the absolute and arbitrary powers of the state.

Ah. You are failing to make an important distinction between arbitrary law and legislative or national (sometimes inaccurately referred to as universal) law.

Laws made by an autocrat or oligarchy, subject only to that person or body, and therefore not applying to that body, are arbitrary. They serve first the ruler, then the state/people, and are an example of false law, as they do not serve the rule of law.

True, legislative law serves the state/people first, and all persons, including the makers of law, are bound by it.

And I would disagree strongly that legislative law arose with the powers of the state. True law RESTRICTS the powers of the state, either by showing the limits of that power, or by actual forbiddance. It was only when the powers of the state were forced to be both non-arbitrary and non-absolute that legislative law arose.

Wrong, Roman law was not legislative law - it was common, i.e. customary, law, that was accumulated from countless decisions of jurists. The display of such laws is no more their creation than the citation of Alice in Wonderland means that you yourself wrote said book. Whereas other rulers were able to rule by fiat, without regard to precedent.*

Yet, the first thing that the Roman Republic did was promulgate the statement that the Senate alone could make law, and that all laws previous (ie under the Roman Monarchy) were null and void. The laws of Rome were legislative in nature - true, they did accept the concept of precedent, and looked to the ancient world for their inspiraton, but it was not custom that was enforced.

Again, customary law is compiled upon the precedents of thousands of jurists, NOT the fiat of the organs of the government. One could not use customary law to be a dictator, as one would have to use the accepted precedents of others in order to do so, and no one would accept being tyrannized. Please read William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England on the benefit of customary law versus statist legislative law.

'Thousands of Jurists'? Hardly. Customary law is usually nothing more than "this is the way we did it in my father's day", and usually no more fair or just.

Certain forms of custom have become sufficiently universal that they have been codified as common law, and those precedents used to restrict government fiat; but this is a phenomenon all but unique to England.

And while it is true that customary laws are not formed by governments, they are almost invariably formed and enforced by local powers, which also almost invariably are the ones who benefit from them. You need not be in government to be powerful, or corrupt.

Edit: *For example, the Magna Carta wasn't legislative law, as the people who forced King John to sign it did not want him to make new laws. They simply wanted him to recognize existing rights that John was ignoring.

Yes, and the actions taken by John immediately afterwards show it's true arbitrariness.

Precisely. It seems to me that is a fundamental basis for a reasonable argument towards anarchism. Democracy doesn't give freedom, all it does is change you from being on one person's leash, to being on everybody's.

More like intellectual incoherence. If I steal your stuff I'm subjugating you because you didn't agreed to it, but if you try to stop me you're subjugating me because I never agreed that it was rightfully yours. Since 100% mutual consent for all rules is impossible in reality anarchism would subjagate people just as much as archism.

sees massive posts, *hides*

:) I must object to the spam.

But since I'm here I might as well contribute my view. Yes, democracy can be described as the tyranny of the majority, but applying Utilitarian reasoning it is the most satisfying, as it keeps the least number of people discontent (well... in theory;)). But I do think it is good in that it generally distributes authority in such a way that makes it most difficult to impose one will, or view, or ethical system etc. on a population, and thus a dysfunctional democracy is the best friend of freedom, if the concept of the state is a given.;)

:) I must object to the spam.

But since I'm here I might as well contribute my view. Yes, democracy can be described as the tyranny of the majority, but applying Utilitarian reasoning it is the most satisfying, as it keeps the least number of people discontent (well... in theory;)). But I do think it is good in that it generally distributes authority in such a way that makes it most difficult to impose one will, or view, or ethical system etc. on a population, and thus a dysfunctional democracy is the best friend of freedom, if the concept of the state is a given.;)

What you say is true, to a point.
There are a few issues with Utilitarian theory:

1) How practical is it to use the Hedonistic calculus for every moral decision you make?
2) Psychological motivation of decisions, how biased are you too what you do, might affect your results of calculus.
3) The problems of sadists mean that it might not be a good idea to help others because some people don’t deserve to be helped.
4) How do you define society? (Does the size of the society affect variables?)
5) Utilitarianism demands too much of the individual.
6) Utilitarianism is based on the context of the moral issue so if you get a different result for something the second time you do it then it could be construed as unfair especially if the person involved has committed a crime.

But because the only other theory is Kantian ethics Utilitarian is the better of the two,
Kantian ethics weaknesses:
1) Ignores consequences,
2) sadists don’t’ really work,
3) sometimes it’s not practical,
4) conflict of duties,
5) not morally responsible for your actions,
6) not flexible about right and wrong,
7) could slip into rule utilitarianism,
8) we all have different moral compass so universability wouldn’t work, we don’t always act rationally,
9) twistable, is duty the only thing that is moral?
10) Understanding of consequences beneath duty.

Kant also says that humans are rational whereas animals act on instinct, he’s an idealist. (which means he thinks humans are different from animals or "gods creatures") Kant is also known as a Transcendental idealist (i think).

Why not? If we decide to kill all the black people, that's a one-off decision.

If you're dead, you have no political power.

If you lose a vote that doesn't deprive you of political power, the same doesn't apply.

Well, how about a specific wealth tax, like in France or Germany? It's a majority imposing some punishment on a specifically targeted minority. So is this subjugation...tyranny even?

No, because we can easily justify such a law with respect to what is best for all, not for a particular part. A majority decision with this kind of equality is the best approximation of people's rule.

The same is not true for (say) killing all the black people: we can only justify such an act if we totally disregard the interests of that group. And once we have done so, we have lost all standing: we cannot decide as pertains to them, for because we are only concerned with private benefit, we can make no distinction between restraining their private benefit for the public good (legitimate as an expression of our right to collective self-determination) and restraining the public good for our private benefit (illegitimate as a restriction of their right to collective self-determination.)

Of course, people often do not actually vote with this distinction in mind, and even if they did they would probably not do a very good job of it. That is why democratic procedures must move significantly beyond the institution of majority vote, so that the distinction can be enforced--though some of it will happen naturally through coalition politics.

Not necessarily. But certainly Rousseau believed that. He rejected the idea of natural right: everything is subject to the decisions of the Sovereign, with the very important restriction that laws must apply to all.

Law is an expression of the general will: it is therefore necessarily subsequent (like all matters of will), not antecedent.

Democracy actually does believe in an abstract being; this is the fundamental difference between res publica (the Roman Republicans would have thought it absurd to think of an abstract being, as would those jurists in the earlier Middle Ages), while democracy presupposes an abstract being with power. And you continue to conflate the idea of general will and interest with particular will and interest; Rousseau did not believe that the subjective and particular interests of individual parties equaled an objective and impartial general will. The general will is something that, if people could be objective, they would follow; it is not a matter of their perceptions but an expression of political reality. Hence, it is antecedent to the particular wills of the people.

No, he doesn't. What gives you that idea? Ensuring that law is upheld is an executive function, not a legislative one. The right of legislation is the right to make laws.

Well, actually, my definition of legislative power was the original definition of legislative power since the Middle Ages. For example, kings were the executive power in that they were assumed to have the right of command. His councils were a legislative power, but they did not just make laws. Rather, they ensured that their constituencies did not have their rights violated and brought their grievances before the executive; to put it shortly, they balanced the rights of their people against the king's right of command. The legislature had all the power, yes, but this power arised from the fact that the executive had no right of command beyond their consent.

Our modern definition of legislative power, however, comes from a corruption of the earlier idea that all power was in the hands of the legislature. With the power invested in itself, a legislature could, sooner or later, simply assume the executive power, the right of command, itself by a variety of means and simply make law, instead of serving as a check upon the executive power. Hence why, where the king standing alone had limits on his power, the king-in-parliament like Henry VIII was greatly strengthened. This is why Rousseau opposed the tribunes; it is deadly when the legislative, representative power is mixed with the right of command of the king.

The one? Even critics of democracy acknowledge "the majority" as having authority (of course talk about society doing something or making a decision and many of them will deny such a body exists).

I do not think the majority has authority. Only wise people have authority; hence why people listen to them and not an unknown amalgamation of strangers.

Your personal sovereignty has been violated in this example, but only because of the specific instance (being punched) itself violates your personal sovereignty. The majority of decisions that don't go your way will not violate your personal sovereignty.

But when the decision is to change the law, and to change what is my due, then I am being violated.

Which explains why decisions would be unlikely to be made that actually violate an individual's sovereignty - because the individual that is in the majority now will be in the minority later.

Not so. If there is subsidiarity and one must personally interact with the people one judges or commands or represents, then no, there is little chance of harm. But once the party machine is built to put your pawns in power under a broad banner, manipulating the fear, hatred and desire for conformity for people, then there is no limit to the destruction that may be caused (see total war, in which there is no longer a personal feud between rulers but a clash between abstract nations.)

The idea of personal sovereignty is that authority is in each individual, not a specific person with power. It is conceivable that some sovereignty can be delegated to a specific person in power, but this would come subsequent to the establishment of personal sovereignty.

OK, we need to define some terms, because we're using them with different meanings. Authority is the recognition of the benevolence and wisdom of a person that makes their decisions voluntarily binding upon oneself. A crazed, psychotic crackhead has no authority, as I know he is a danger to me and has little to no connection with reality; however, my generous neighbor next door who I always go to when I have trouble has authority, as I trust him and his decisions. Sovereignty is when one authority leads a group of people for a general or particular end; when I am leading others to help charity, I have sovereignty.

Which is determined by how the authority came to be in power and the decisions it makes.

Fair enough.

One must render each their due under the law because such is the purpose of the law - to maximize justice.

Actually, rendering each their due precedes justice, as justice is to render each their due. The law enforces justice, which is to have a harmonious order in which each is rendered their due.

Ah. You are failing to make an important distinction between arbitrary law and legislative or national (sometimes inaccurately referred to as universal) law.

Legislative law is arbitrary law, in that it is law created by those in high positions of power rather than from the bottom-up. It is basically central-planning.

Laws made by an autocrat or oligarchy, subject only to that person or body, and therefore not applying to that body, are arbitrary. They serve first the ruler, then the state/people, and are an example of false law, as they do not serve the rule of law.

Seeing as all legislative laws establish functional privilege (such as the fact that, while I cannot tear up your yard legally, the city public works can,) this only shows the arbitrary nature of legislative law. Legislators, in their ability to make law as according to their function while others are barred from doing so, also demonstrate the arbitrariness of legislative law.

True, legislative law serves the state/people first, and all persons, including the makers of law, are bound by it.

Until the legislators decide they don't like it and change it, while the rest of us are left powerless to their whims.

And I would disagree strongly that legislative law arose with the powers of the state. True law RESTRICTS the powers of the state, either by showing the limits of that power, or by actual forbiddance. It was only when the powers of the state were forced to be both non-arbitrary and non-absolute that legislative law arose.

Yes, true law restricts the power of the state, but true law has been eroded or lost for centuries. When kings were forced to beg for subsidies from their subjects, since his right of command was subordinate to their customary rights, most especially their right of consent, there was true law. But when his right of command grew in power, such as when the taille was established as a permanent tax and the king no longer needed to summon his councils, or when legislatures assumed the right of command by having an all-powerful king-in-parliament, then we see the rise of legislation cutting away at the customary rights of the subjects of the realm. (As an example, Louis XIV attempted to impose a tax on the nobles without gaining their consent, beginning the Fronde. This is a clear example of legislative-law making at the behest of the arbitrary will of the king attacking the freedoms established by custom.)

Yet, the first thing that the Roman Republic did was promulgate the statement that the Senate alone could make law, and that all laws previous (ie under the Roman Monarchy) were null and void. The laws of Rome were legislative in nature - true, they did accept the concept of precedent, and looked to the ancient world for their inspiraton, but it was not custom that was enforced.

Yes, the Roman Senate did have such a power, but Roman Law was also developed through precedent, gradual development of law, and polycentrism. (See Peter G. Stein, Roman Law, Common Law, and Civil Law.) And one of the worst parts of the Roman Empire was the institution by decree, i.e. legislation, of price and wage controls under Diocletian.

'Thousands of Jurists'? Hardly. Customary law is usually nothing more than "this is the way we did it in my father's day", and usually no more fair or just.

Well, that's wrong. I've given sources earlier that say otherwise, and I will also point you in the direction of the Kapauku Papuans, who were able to change laws concerning intermarriage and adultery within the acceptance of a few precedents as personally witnessed by Leopold Poppisil, or the reform of English feudal land law simply by precedent as Blackstone mentions in his book.

Certain forms of custom have become sufficiently universal that they have been codified as common law, and those precedents used to restrict government fiat; but this is a phenomenon all but unique to England.

Actually, this phenomenon is much more wide-spread; such concepts have existed in Ireland, Iceland, and the Germanic and Scandinavian kingdoms. They were also embodied in the councils that kings were forced to call when they ran out of money, where representatives of the subjects of the king would defend the customary rights of their constituents and force the king to recognize them in return for some financial subsidy.

And while it is true that customary laws are not formed by governments, they are almost invariably formed and enforced by local powers, which also almost invariably are the ones who benefit from them. You need not be in government to be powerful, or corrupt.

Customary law is dependent upon mutual acceptance of an adjudicator by all parties involved. Merchant Law, the laws of mining camps, and the laws of wagon trails prove the efficacy of custom in establishing justice. Even today, 75% of legal disputes between businesses are solved by arbiters using customary business practice as custom. Customary law is essentially a market for law, and like any business they must satisfy their customers.

Yes, and the actions taken by John immediately afterwards show it's true arbitrariness.

King John was ignoring customary law in favor of his legislative edicts, while his rebellious subjects were trying to uphold their customary rights.

Hence, it is antecedent to the particular wills of the people.

No, it is derived from the particular wills of the people.

You forget the fundamental idea of the social compact: we join together our wills so that we can have social freedom in a society where individual (natural) freedom is impossible.

The "general will" is not the same as the "will of all", but only in that it cancels out the conflicts: it is still founded on this union, and thus is quite explicitly subsequent to our particular wills.

And how do we decide what the general will is? By voting on laws, democratically.

This is why Rousseau opposed the tribunes; it is deadly when the legislative, representative power is mixed with the right of command of the king.

But as he says, this has nothing to do with any legislative usurpation of the right to make laws (a right that belongs to the general will, which is only discovered through the democratic legislative process), but rather with legislative usurpation of the right to enforce laws.

If you're dead, you have no political power.

If you lose a vote that doesn't deprive you of political power, the same doesn't apply.
What exactly is "political power"? If it's just the ability to implement your wishes in this political process, then someone who loses a vote and whose opinion was therefore completely disregarded in the decisionmaking process has no political power.

The same is not true for (say) killing all the black people: we can only justify such an act if we totally disregard the interests of that group.
So you're saying that a wealth tax is good for society, even though it is a punishment of a minority for the disproportionate benefit of another group in society - but the same can't be said for killing all black people? Why not?

We may well have an idiot who thinks that black people cause crime and poverty for some reason, and so killing them might well harm them (just as a wealth tax harms the rich), but be beneficial to everyone else, or society. You can even make an analogue to the idea that the rich also benefit from their tax money being spent by preventing black people having to grow up in inner urban, crime-infested ghettos.

And if you really don't like the killing idea, we can change it to daily 40 lashes at dawn. Would that be any more democratic? Maybe next time the victims manage to win a vote and be able to overturn that law.

No, it is derived from the particular wills of the people.

You forget the fundamental idea of the social compact: we join together our wills so that we can have social freedom in a society where individual (natural) freedom is impossible.

The "general will" is not the same as the "will of all", but only in that it cancels out the conflicts: it is still founded on this union, and thus is quite explicitly subsequent to our particular wills.

And how do we decide what the general will is? By voting on laws, democratically.

Rousseau still believed that, even considering the social compact etc., legislation should be avoided in general because of the way it swings towards particular interests despite what the general, objective interest might be. The difference between the particular will and general will is enough that there must be some control over the former so that it does not interfere in the execution of the latter. Hence his praise for the aristocrats who have the leisure to philosophize and independence not to be drawn towards the petty interests that might otherwise dominate them. Though he does believe in a compact, he is reluctant to use legislation in all cases, but would rather have everyone consent to the law because they see it as reasonable.

But as he says, this has nothing to do with any legislative usurpation of the right to make laws (a right that belongs to the general will, which is only discovered through the democratic legislative process), but rather with legislative usurpation of the right to enforce laws.

Yet the fact remains that he is not confident in the inerrancy of the legislative process, which swings towards particular interests to the detriment of the general interest.

If it's just the ability to implement your wishes in this political process, then someone who loses a vote and whose opinion was therefore completely disregarded in the decisionmaking process has no political power.

That doesn't follow.

If I lose a vote, the decision-making process has decided against me. If I lose my voting rights, the decision-making process disregards me.

So you're saying that a wealth tax is good for society, even though it is a punishment of a minority for the disproportionate benefit of another group in society

What does "disproportionate" mean?

Does it benefit some and not others? Yes. But so do virtually all economic policies--no wealth tax benefits the rich at the expense of whoever would benefit from the wealth tax.

Better to consider the economic system as a whole, not specific policies within it. Only then can we differentiate between policies that are really about disproportionate benefit and policies that instead are about reversing disproportionate benefit.

but the same can't be said for killing all black people? Why not?

Because "blackness" is arbitrary. There is no justification possible in terms of the good of all.

We may well have an idiot who thinks that black people cause crime and poverty for some reason, and so killing them might well harm them (just as a wealth tax harms the rich), but be beneficial to everyone else, or society.

First, the conclusion that "black people cause crime and poverty" is pretty much predicated on racism, and the fact that this racism is couched in terms of the public good is immaterial--at heart it's still a denial of the equality I've been emphasizing the entire time. (The same thing could be said of redistributive policies, if they were ultimately motivated simply by mindless hatred of the rich.)

Second, even if it were true that black people in general are responsible for crime and poverty, it still wouldn't be true that the fairest way to address this would be to lump all black people together. There could still be extensive differentiation between the specific black people responsible and the others.

Third, even if it were true that black people as a whole and without exception were responsible for crime and poverty, genocide still is not a proportionate response. There is no comparison whatsoever to the wealth tax here. The wealth tax makes rich people less rich; they're still much better off than most people. Those murdered by such a law would be dead.

And if you really don't like the killing idea, we can change it to daily 40 lashes at dawn.

Which would be totally useless, unlike the wealth tax, and as such quite obviously connected to arbitrary majority power.

Consider another analogy here: murder. Is it tyranny of the majority to imprison murderers? After all, the murderer is being harmed for our benefit... right?

Rousseau still believed that, even considering the social compact etc., legislation should be avoided in general because of the way it swings towards particular interests despite what the general, objective interest might be.

Where does he say this? Quote him.

Hence his praise for the aristocrats who have the leisure to philosophize and independence not to be drawn towards the petty interests that might otherwise dominate them.

He does speak of the advantage of leisure in terms of preserving liberty, but this is about not being represented... if anything, it's about being able to legislate as a population more often, not less.

Where does he say this? Quote him.

I don't have my copy on me right now, I'm afraid, since I'm not at home. I hope you can forgive me. But I can TG it to you whenever I get my hands on it again. This is the reason why he feels that democracy is really only functional in small political units, where people know and are accountable to one another; past that, the particular interests would be completely out of line with the general will.

He does speak of the advantage of leisure in terms of preserving liberty, but this is about not being represented... if anything, it's about being able to legislate as a population more often, not less.

Well, actually, it does have to do with being represented. That is why he flirts with the idea that the institution of slavery, which gave slave owners a great deal of leisure, ensured the flowering of the ancient republics. The slaves as a population were most certainly unable to legislate as a population, while those who were free were able to make good laws. And this would also reflect his life in Geneva, where an aristocracy was, in fact, in power.

I don't have my copy on me right now, I'm afraid, since I'm not at home. I hope you can forgive me.

There are Internet copies (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm). But if you don't want to deal with it now, that's fine.

But I can TG it to you whenever I get my hands on it again.

Okay.

This is the reason why he feels that democracy is really only functional in small political units, where people know and are accountable to one another; past that, the particular interests would be completely out of line with the general will.

Well, if you mean by "democracy" what Rousseau calls "democracy", yes, but that is not the same as what we call "democracy": he is referring to democratic enforcement, while generally we think of democratic legislation, which Rousseau absolutely supported.

The slaves as a population were most certainly unable to legislate as a population, while those who were free were able to make good laws..

Right. Good laws for themselves, not for the slaves. Because they had the leisure to not be represented. That's the whole point he's making by bringing up the matter of slavery.

If I lose a vote, the decision-making process has decided against me. If I lose my voting rights, the decision-making process disregards me.
So even though it makes no difference whatsoever in terms of outcomes whether I go and vote and lose or I don't get to vote at all, I'm supposed to tolerate one but not the other?

Better to consider the economic system as a whole, not specific policies within it. Only then can we differentiate between policies that are really about disproportionate benefit and policies that instead are about reversing disproportionate benefit.
Regardless of the system, short of a completely laissez-faire economy you're going to have decisions being made about specific policies.

And besides, you (and I, to a lesser extent) think the current system is bad and unfair. Yet we never actually get to vote on it. So are we in a democratic system or not?

Third, even if it were true that black people as a whole and without exception were responsible for crime and poverty, genocide still is not a proportionate response. There is no comparison whatsoever to the wealth tax here. The wealth tax makes rich people less rich; they're still much better off than most people. Those murdered by such a law would be dead.

Which would be totally useless, unlike the wealth tax, and as such quite obviously connected to arbitrary majority power.
Who knows? It might make all those drug dealers worry about their wounds rather than sell crack. I don't know what sort of justification people will come up with, but you know they will.

And whether or not the policy is ultimately good or effective is immaterial, as long as the majority voted on it. In both cases you're attacking a person - in one case their body, in the other its extension.

Consider another analogy here: murder. Is it tyranny of the majority to imprison murderers? After all, the murderer is being harmed for our benefit... right?
Imprisoning a murderer is a punishment. The murderer gives up a right when he takes someone else's.

There are both moral and practical arguments to be made for this. A wealth tax on the other hand would be a punishment without a crime. By being rich, no one harms anyone. The initiation of evil, as it were, comes from the tax man.

Well, if you mean by "democracy" what Rousseau calls "democracy", yes, but that is not the same as what we call "democracy": he is referring to democratic enforcement, while generally we think of democratic legislation, which Rousseau absolutely supported.

He was actually quite clear in the idea that having a large democracy would only result in strife as diverse and distant peoples quarrelled with one another, and that they would be better off being separate from one another rather than having disagreeable democratic legislation on a large-scale. He knew full well that a majority was not necessarily the general will, and realized that legislation could be devastating to the community.

Right. Good laws for themselves, not for the slaves. Because they had the leisure to not be represented. That's the whole point he's making by bringing up the matter of slavery.

He was actually referencing the general prosperity of the ancient republics, not just the benefits that were only particular in nature, and that the institution of slavery allowed for their prosperity as they allowed for a group to have the free time to ponder the laws. Also, their independence allowed them to be free of the particular interests of others and thus not allow the dominance of the particular over the general will. He does not come right out and endorse such a system, but he does play with it. It is not really surprising considering the politics of Geneva at the time.

So even though it makes no difference whatsoever in terms of outcomes whether I go and vote and lose or I don't get to vote at all, I'm supposed to tolerate one but not the other?

First, it does... perhaps not with respect to a particular decision, but certainly in general. If nothing else, what is being proposed must appeal to enough people to survive despite your opposition, which will likely moderate the damage you fear... so you exercise influence on decision-making even if you never win.

Second, yes, even if the outcomes were exactly the same you should tolerate one and not the other. Similarly, you should tolerate imprisonment in accordance with due process and the rule of law, but not imprisonment in accordance with the arbitrary whim of an individual. The outcome might be the same, but the procedure in the first case is fair, and the procedure in the second case is not.

You can think of it in terms of discovery: as long as you are denied a fair share of political power, the result may be illegitimate, because your influence may have made the difference. Once you have been given fair political power, the result will be legitimate, because if your influence would have made the difference, it does make the difference.

Regardless of the system, short of a completely laissez-faire economy you're going to have decisions being made about specific policies.

Of course. But we consider their justification in the context of the entire economic system, not independently of it.

And besides, you (and I, to a lesser extent) think the current system is bad and unfair. Yet we never actually get to vote on it.

Not explicitly, no, but certainly it is within the scope of the democratic process. If the people wanted to abolish capitalism, the formal processes exist that would let them do it.

Who knows? It might make all those drug dealers worry about their wounds rather than sell crack. I don't know what sort of justification people will come up with, but you know they will.

Maybe. So? Their action is still illegitimate, and I've explained why.

Imprisoning a murderer is a punishment. The murderer gives up a right when he takes someone else's.

Forget the specifics of "imprisoning"; my original point was badly phrased. The point is about prohibition. A potential murderer has the desire to murder someone. By prohibiting him from doing so, he is harmed for the benefit of his potential victim.

A wealth tax on the other hand would be a punishment without a crime.

So is prohibiting murder. What crime has the potential murderer committed? None. But still the tyrannical majority arrogates to itself the right to restrict his liberty of action for the benefit of others, treating him merely as a tool for their ends.

By being rich, no one harms anyone.

No one is harmed by the structures of property that permit wealth? Really?

More to the point, it is not about "harm" in the direct sense. Looking at it politically, the question is this: wealth tax or no wealth tax? Instituting the wealth tax harms some for the benefit of others. Not instituting the wealth tax harms some for the benefit of others. You're biasing the consideration in favor of the laissez-faire default, but democratically speaking (and ethically speaking), we have no reason to do so: whether it is a positive departure from laissez-faire or a negative non-interference with it makes no difference.

This point is only highlighted when we consider that the institutions of modern capitalism have always required extensive positive government action.

He was actually quite clear in the idea that having a large democracy would only result in strife as diverse and distant peoples quarrelled with one another,

Yes, and that's why he advocated small states. This is not an argument against democracy; it's an argument against large-scale centralized power.

He was actually referencing the general prosperity of the ancient republics, not just the benefits that were only particular in nature,

Politics for Rousseau is not about "prosperity", it is about liberty. That is the focus of his argument. To adopt your interpretation, we would have to accept that this arrangement of power promoted the "general" liberty, including the liberty of the slaves... and since Rousseau repeatedly attacks slavery as a blatant and grievous violation of liberty, and explicitly contrasts the slavery of the slaves with the liberty the free people enjoyed as a result of slavery, that is clearly not what he means.

and that the institution of slavery allowed for their prosperity as they allowed for a group to have the free time to ponder the laws.

That's not what he says. Again, his point is about representation. Ancient peoples could be truly democratic, because they had slavery to give them the leisure for it. Modern peoples tend instead to be represented, abandoning their liberty, because they lack that slavery and the resultant leisure.

Rousseau is, of course, against slavery, and against any arrangement that would deny the population, or a part of it, direct political power, because for him this is equivalent to slavery. He wants liberty for everyone, and thus this is not a solution for him. Instead, he says that the state should be very small, so popular assemblies are easier to organize.

I think that most modernday democracies have constitutions that prevent rediculous scenarios like that one and constitutions require much more than 51% to pass.

Democracy is not tyranny of the majority unless the nation is set up to allow that. In Canada the "first past the post" system allows for such tyranny, same goes for the "us and them" approach to politics in the U.S. Luckily we have the good ol' constitution!

Yes, and that's why he advocated small states. This is not an argument against democracy; it's an argument against large-scale centralized power.

But if you take these observations to their logical conclusion, it would be an argument against democracy. Obviously, sovereignty on such a small-scale is dependent upon cordial personal relations, i.e. trust. As Rousseau advocates, the people in such a political system would listen to one another with attentness and interest in their ideas. Necessarily, authority would arise from those who have the leisure to philosophize and the independence to be unbiased, which would arise in an aristocracy of natural authority that people would follow. I do not think that slavery is a prerequisite of such a system, but would be an evolution of the division of labor.

Politics for Rousseau is not about "prosperity", it is about liberty. That is the focus of his argument. To adopt your interpretation, we would have to accept that this arrangement of power promoted the "general" liberty, including the liberty of the slaves... and since Rousseau repeatedly attacks slavery as a blatant and grievous violation of liberty, and explicitly contrasts the slavery of the slaves with the liberty the free people enjoyed as a result of slavery, that is clearly not what he means.

Fair enough. But the fact remains that there must be those with leisure and independence to maintain the commonwealth; the right of command, i.e. the executive power, necessarily means that not everyone can be independent.

That's not what he says. Again, his point is about represetation. Ancient peoples could be truly democratic, because they had slavery to give them the leisure for it. Modern peoples tend instead to be represented, abandoning their liberty, because they lack that slavery and the resultant leisure.

Rousseau is, of course, against slavery, and against any arrangement that would deny the population, or a part of it, direct political power, because for him this is equivalent to slavery. He wants liberty for everyone, and thus this is not a solution for him. Instead, he says that the state should be very small, so popular assemblies are easier to organize.

Yes. But on such a small-scale, popular assemblies would necessarily gravitate towards the direction of natural authority as the opinions of some would be respected more than others, and these natural authorities would best present the general interest. As a part of the division of labor, the authorities would have or gain the leisure and independence needed for their proper function. I imagine that the result of such a system would be something like the Kapauku Papuans, in which disputes are taken to the tonowi for adjudication, and in which there is no need for the state because everything may be handled by commonly accepted authority and thus maintain cordial individual relations.

Democracy is not tyranny of the majority unless the nation is set up to allow that.

Any democracy that is not a pure consensus democracy has the potential to incrementally evolve into a tyranny by majority, or even minority. All you have to do is progressively exclude portions of the population from participation. A poll tax here, literacy test there, license/ID requirement there, long-term residency requirement here, felony/misdemeanor restriction there... soon entire groups and classes are excluded from political participation and their interests are no longer represented. As long as some people, even a huge majority, can alter the government and impose their will on an entire population, there is always the possibility.

I do not think the majority has authority. Only wise people have authority; hence why people listen to them and not an unknown amalgamation of strangers.Really? Nobody ever obeys the law just because it's the law?

But when the decision is to change the law, and to change what is my due, then I am being violated.What if the law is being changed to become more in accordance with your due?

Not so. If there is subsidiarity and one must personally interact with the people one judges or commands or represents, then no, there is little chance of harm. But once the party machine is built to put your pawns in power under a broad banner, manipulating the fear, hatred and desire for conformity for people, then there is no limit to the destruction that may be caused (see total war, in which there is no longer a personal feud between rulers but a clash between abstract nations.)This isn't an argument against democracy, it's an argument against large nations. This is fine, as I like the idea of smaller communities anyway.

OK, we need to define some terms, because we're using them with different meanings. Authority is the recognition of the benevolence and wisdom of a person that makes their decisions voluntarily binding upon oneself. A crazed, psychotic crackhead has no authority, as I know he is a danger to me and has little to no connection with reality; however, my generous neighbor next door who I always go to when I have trouble has authority, as I trust him and his decisions. Sovereignty is when one authority leads a group of people for a general or particular end; when I am leading others to help charity, I have sovereignty.Your definitions do not match the commonly accepted definitions (authority is arguably close, but not sovereignty).
Authority (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority)
Sovereignty (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereignty)

Actually, rendering each their due precedes justice, as justice is to render each their due. The law enforces justice, which is to have a harmonious order in which each is rendered their due.If the law doesn't render each their due, then what does?

Venndee is an interesting person indeed, it's like he went asleep yesterday in the ancien regime and woke up today in the modern world, unaware of any developments in democracy and popular sovereignty.

I voted to line up and shoot the minority.