Comment by CamperBob2
11 years ago
I've never understood the difference between a stereotypical dictatorship and mob rule by the (inevitably unenlightened) majority in a true democracy. I'm not sure there is a difference. They both sound like hell on Earth.
> I've never understood the difference
You are not interested in understanding, you only seek emotional comfort from fear of "mob rule", which is actually a straw man. If you truly were interested, the answer is obvious.
Switzerland, United States (some states) and Iceland sure don't sound like hell on Earth. These are some of the most democratic countries on Earth.
To be fair, as I remember from a documentary I watched, the number of people, when asked, who believe that democracy in America means "majority rule", outnumbers those who do not.
That we aren't a democracy, but are instead a federal republic, is a distinction lost on many, especially as they clamor to remove the constitutionally protected rights of others.
It indeed means majority rule, in a certain sense. The majority is adhoc, unlike in dictatorship, where the decision makers are defined independently of the issue. This distinction is also lost on many. :-)
Regarding democracy/republic distinction. This is a non-issue, mostly invoked by people against democracy. Of course functioning democracy needs republic, constitution, and protection of rights of others, especially the right to vote (which is btw one of the first things stripped to people before genocide happens). Democracy by definition includes all minorities. You cannot have people democratically voting to take democratic rights away from someone - that's kind of a Russell's paradox.
And I believe that U.S. would be much better off (for normal folks) if it actually were democracy on federal level, which it isn't, I agree. On state level U.S. is often more democratic (these are remnants of progressive movement from the beginning of 20th century) and some decisions are lot better; there are even studies that show that.
5 replies →
I understand a great deal about those particular countries. I understand that in Switzerland, the People have decided that it's reasonable to hand out $1 million speeding tickets. [1]
Pornography was illegal in Norway until 2006 [2], while the US (not a direct democracy or even close to one) has had its First Amendment since 1791.
In Iceland, you must pay a "congregation tax" to the church of your choice[3]. Those who do not belong to a church pay the same amount to the state, according to Wikipedia, but the Church of Iceland receives funding beyond the congregation taxes paid by its members.
Also in Switzerland, professional fisherman must attend classes in compassion, and special chemicals are issued for putting goldfish to death. [4]
A government that can do these things to you can also do much worse, and history suggests that it eventually will. Democracy is no guarantee of liberty and rationality, and neither is a secular population.
But yes, you're probably right, I'll pipe down now and move to Somalia (which I'm sure will be your next suggestion.)
[1] http://jalopnik.com/the-eight-biggest-speeding-tickets-ever-...
[2] http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax
[4] http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2008/04/28/swiss-governme...
>Pornography was illegal in Norway until 2006 [2], while the US (not a direct democracy or even close to one) has had its First Amendment since 1791.
Is your claim here that pornography was legal in the United States since 1791, or something else?
>A government that can do these things to you can also do much worse, and history suggests that it eventually will.
All of the states you've mentioned have had that power and ability for at least a century. None of them are dystopian hellholes.
2 replies →