[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 317 KB, 436x436, catofdoom.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1982209 No.1982209 [Reply] [Original]

Are democracies democratic?

>> No.1982214

LOL MAYBE, DUDE

>> No.1982222

>>1982214
It's a serious question. Even though I added the .jpg because the OP struck me as funny, I'm not quite so sure they are

opinions?

>> No.1982232

>>1982209
No. No they aren't. It's the democracy of the majority, but not everyone's view counts.

Look at Britain as a prime example. All but one constituency voted against Tory power, but because the majority of England voted for the Tories, they won. This means that those who went against the majority are not being represented, thus, no, democracies are not democratic.

>> No.1982267

>>1982232
tyranny of the majority is inevitable, I'm not really concerned about that.

I should clarify a bit because my OP was shitty: I'm asking if the democratic state ever really managed to transition from the authoritarian regimes it overtook,why there failed to be a power vacuum re-instituting hierarchical rule- or if that indeed happened

>> No.1982268

>>1982232
The tories didn't 'win' you daft shit, it's a coalition government.

>> No.1983981
File: 95 KB, 600x435, 1294553027240.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1983981

>>1982267
No because the only time a state is democratic is during elections. Only then your opinion counts, and even then propaganda from every major political party tends to polarize the masses instead of reaching a consensus based on individual suggestions.
I'm not even suggesting that democracy is a healthy system to begin with, because the argument of someone educated on a subject has the same weight as the opinion of an uneducated man. Yet democracy is a holy word in the zeitgeist and not to be trifled with. But I digress.

>> No.1983997 [DELETED] 
File: 27 KB, 236x283, ladysovereigngrin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1983997

>>1982268
>mfw he thinks the Lib Dems actually have a say.

>> No.1984681

>>1983997
>He thinks that's somehow relevant to the topic at hand.

>> No.1984716

>>1983981
you are assuming "Expert opinion" isn't just ultimately an opinion dressed up. Absolute paths of opinion do not exist, technocracy is a thin veil at best

>> No.1984742

The only democracy is participatory democracy. Representative democracy is just an illusion used to tame people. It really is the furthest thing from true democracy. If people are given the chance to turn up to the voting ballots every 3 or 4 years, they are under the impression they are living in a free and democratic society, and are content to give government unlimited control over the people. It seems that voters are oblivious to the fact that big business and then government hold all the power.

>> No.1984762

>>1984742
Oh fuck off back to starbucks you nauseatingly pretentious wanker.

>> No.1984783

it would be approaching true democracy if the option to do away with leaders was presented on the ballot alongside the parties

>> No.1984795
File: 33 KB, 485x323, thoumad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1984795

>>1984762
Obviously you aren't very informed on political theory. Seeing as how we're on /lit/, you may want to ask around for any good books on the subject.

>> No.1984812

>Are democracies democratic?
It may be a serious question, but it's not an interesting one. And not necessarily, related nouns and adjectives may have very little in common semantically.

>> No.1984815

>>1984795
>tries to appear intelligent.
>LOLUMAD reaction image.
Please, just piss off.

>> No.1984820

>>1984815
Way to avoid my point.

>> No.1984826

democracies aren't really democracies and if we dont believe you we obviously need to read more political theory great point awesome

>> No.1984828

>>1984820
You didn't make a point you dimwitted mongoloid, you just said LOL U DON'T KNOW ABOUT POLITICAL THEORY

>> No.1984844

>>1984826
having a bad day, d&e?

>> No.1984856

>>1984826
Are you drunk D&E?

>> No.1984859

>>1984828
The point I made in my first post. You're the perfect example of the people I was talking about; people who are deluded into thinking they live in a society where power is equally distributed and is run on democratic ideals. You don't know what the word 'democracy' means. And the fact that all you can respond with are insults only reveals your inability to consider a different idea than your own.

>> No.1984866

>>1984742

Representative democracy works so long as it is limited by a set of principles.

In the United States case our principles are outlined in the constitution. Majority rule should be limited solely to voting into office the men who will oversee that the government is ran properly.

The fact that we have all these entitlements and other laws instead of basic rights protections is really shameful.

Just remember, unlimited democracy killed Socrates because the majority of the time didn't like what he had to say.

Majority rule becomes majority tyranny.

Democracy is horrible.

>> No.1984872

>>1984859
>people who are deluded into thinking they live in a society where power is equally distributed
Uh, I don't think that.
> is run on democratic ideals.
Bitch I live in a monarchy.
>And the fact that all you can respond with are insults only reveals your inability to consider a different idea than your own.
But you're quite clearly fucking wrong.

>> No.1984926

>>1984866
The problem with the concept of people who are elected by the majority into a position that hoards power (ie government) is ethically wrong and unnecessary. These people don't oversee that the government is run properly. When humans have disproportionate power over their fellow people that is backed by legitimacy, they will use it for their own ends or for the mutual benefit of other people in such positions with vested interests.
As for Socrates, he was killed because of his perceived disloyalty to Athens, and this view was partly because of the general population's disillusionment with democracy (they were under the impression that democracy had allowed the weakening of their city and a strong single ruler was needed).

>>1984872
>Bitch I live in a monarchy.
Constitutional monarchy

>But you're quite clearly fucking wrong
Clearly.

But don't stop with the ad hominem, now.

>> No.1984945

>>1984926

Government should be limited by the same principles the country is founded on obviously.

The point is not why Socrates was killed by the majority the point is that democracy is what allowed it to happen.

Do you think that if the majority of the United States wanted and voted in for the demise of Chomsky that we would sentence him to death?

True democracy eventually only becomes a power struggle over who can convince the majority to don the banner of their ideals.

>> No.1984949

>>1984945

Excuse the bb code. I'm new around here.

>> No.1984957

>>1984949
dat sum dqn?

>> No.1984967

>>1984926
>Constitutional monarchy
If wor Liz wants to she's within her rights to tear that shit up and do as she likes. Constitutional monarchies aren't monarchies in which the monarch is bound by a constitution. Who's the one who knows fuck all about political theory now?

>> No.1984976

>>1984967
The point is that she nor any monarch will ever 'tear that shit up and do as she likes'. What do you think the result would be? Do you actually believe people would allow that to happen? Keep trying, though.

>> No.1984989

>>1984976
You said that people are fooled into thinking that we are a democracy. We're not a democracy. We're a monarchy, where the authority of the crown is devolved onto Parliament. Nobody is under any illusions in this country, you are just being a complete tool.
Also learn some history, the bloodiest conflict in the history of England was due to the King dismissing parliament.

>> No.1984991

>>1984945
Your definition of true democracy as 'a power struggle over who can convince the majority to don the banner of their ideals' is actually the perfect definition of representative democracy ie politicians using their power to convince as much of the population as they can that their policies and ideological viewpoints are in their best interests. What do you propose if not absolute or true democracy (by the way I think pure democracy can only exist without government).

>> No.1984996

>everyone thinking we live in democracies

That's just a buzzword. Pretty much all the western world lives in republics.

>> No.1985010

>>1984989
Jesus, you aren't the sharpest one here, are you? When I said people are generally under the pretense that they live in a democracy, I was referring to the fact that people in nearly all countries think that a democracy is defined as voting for your preferred party, and being complacent in light of their rule over the country once they are in government. I wasn't referring to the literal classification of only your country as a democracy or a monarchy.

>> No.1985012

>>1985010
>'You're not very clever'
>Makes enormous generalisations
Oh lol. 'Rule over the country' is a good bit too.

>> No.1985027

>Rule over the country
What do you call a government in control of all the apparatuses and institutions of the state, when the population of that state is largely helpless in determining its own agenda and destiny?

>> No.1985033

>>1985027
>Population is largely helpless
I dunno bro, our standards of living are pretty good over here.

>> No.1985038

>>1985033
I wasn't soley talking about standards of living, but if that is all you ask for in the society you live in, that's cool.

>> No.1985039

Does the Pope shit in the woods?