Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
So then you should be able to give me an example of the people in a democracy voting for something you don't approve of.
Last edited:
-
Features
Dictatorship is neither left nor right
- Thread starter untermensche
- Start date
So then you should be able to give me an example of the people in a democracy voting for something you don't approve of.
untermensche
Contributor
What is the point exactly?
Every person who voted for Trump voted for something I don't approve of.
You have no point.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Irrelevant dodge, question not answered.
Try going back 100 years and being of the wrong religion in a democracy.
untermensche
Contributor
Oh. It's a dodge because you can't support your stupidity about the tyranny of the majority.
I see.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
No you don't, or you would have answered my question. I ask for one example of a system you consider a democracy wherein the result of the vote by the people is something you consider wrongly decided. Anything other than that is a dodge.
untermensche
Contributor
This is not about what I like or don't like.
It is about having a system that can respond to the needs of everyone.
Everybody needs health insurance.
A decent democracy would come up with a plan to meet this need.
Especially when so many nations have done it already.
A failed democracy would somehow not be able to meet this need that other nations have met for decades.
It is about having a system that can respond to the needs of everyone.
Everybody needs health insurance.
A decent democracy would come up with a plan to meet this need.
Especially when so many nations have done it already.
A failed democracy would somehow not be able to meet this need that other nations have met for decades.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Yes it is. A system you consider good and democratic that also the voters voted on an outcome you disapprove of.
untermensche
Contributor
That is convoluted nonsense.
You have no point.
You merely tried to peddle this tyranny of the majority bullshit and failed miserably.
Give it up.
There is no such thing.
It is obly something the lovers of dictatorship whine about. It is not real.
I tell you that a failed democracy is a modern democracy that can't seem to create a good universal health insurance system and it is a complete waste of time.
You don't give a shit the democracy is bad.
You have your own irrational agenda.
You have no point.
You merely tried to peddle this tyranny of the majority bullshit and failed miserably.
Give it up.
There is no such thing.
It is obly something the lovers of dictatorship whine about. It is not real.
I tell you that a failed democracy is a modern democracy that can't seem to create a good universal health insurance system and it is a complete waste of time.
You don't give a shit the democracy is bad.
You have your own irrational agenda.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
That is a good description of your posts. And another dodge.
An example of a system that you consider sufficiently democratic in which the voters decided something you disagree with. Just one example.
untermensche
Contributor
Right after you admit the " tyranny of the majority" is a delusion.
PyramidHead
Contributor
I'm not seeing the point behind unter's reticence to give an example nor your and dismal's insistence that he does. It can just be an imaginary case, where the office votes to get lunch at Quizno's and I wanted to go to McDonald's. Or something more serious, like if a council of workers voted to adopt a technology that was more efficient but bad for the environment, and I was in the minority. It's not a big mystery. But having given those examples, there's no underlying admonition of democracy to be found anyway. If people vote to do something I don't like, the only rational courses of action would be to try to change their minds or get other people on my side of the issue; i.e. democracy. In the end, you'll just end up saying 'yeah, it turns out democracy is the solution to democratic actions that somebody may dislike, and that's way better than dictatorship.' Which is the entire purpose of the thread to begin with. This thread is getting into last-word territory.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Your refusal to give an example of the majority democratically deciding you disagree with does not count as evidence against tyranny of the majority, it is only evidence that you refuse to acknowledge reality.
PyramidHead
Contributor
By definition, wouldn't every democratically reached motion, unless it were totally unanimous, result in somebody's wishes not being represented by the motion? Is this somehow news, or reason to be suspicious of democracy?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Although it is for a sane person, unter defines anything he agrees with as democratic and anything he disagrees with as non-democratic. My question, and the reason he refuses to answer, is to him a contradiction.
untermensche
Contributor
No shit.
Tyranny of the majority merely means your ideas didn't win.
But there always must be ideas that don't win.
It is nothing but something lovers of dictatorship talk about.
PyramidHead
Contributor
So? Maybe stop asking then? I don't get the fixation with winning on the internet, you've made your comment like a dozen times now, the returns are rapidly diminishing
PyramidHead
Contributor
Tyranny of the majority is always assigned in hindsight, long after the correct thing is already supported by the majority, to point and sneer at a time when it wasn't. Every time, though, if you follow up and ask what the majority back then would have decided if their whole society was more democratic, and not just whatever mechanism they used for that one decision, they most likely would have come to the right conclusion.
Democracy simply reveals, when there isn't enough of it, the negative effects of not having enough democracy. It shines a big spotlight on the majority and says: look how sad it is that they think this way, and if we'd listened to everyone's voice from the get-go they probably wouldn't be so entrenched by now, so let's get to work on changing some minds. It never says: this could have been prevented by just letting rich people run everything.
untermensche
Contributor
These people also can't seem to understand what a terribly corrupted democracy exists in the US.
Any democracy that can't create a universal health system in today's world is a failed democracy.
Any democracy that can't create a universal health system in today's world is a failed democracy.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
So give me an example from a democracy that isn't terribly corrupted, some other democracy. It doesn't have to be an example from the United States.