Joe Jackson (email@example.com)
Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:39:51 -0500
Thanks for trying to clue us in on what John meant, but you should know that
John believes that a democracy in which the power of the majority is limited
is not a democracy, so I can tell you in all confidence that what you posted
is not what he meant. And doesn't really speak to what I am saying.
Without regard to the danger for the power of the majority in a democracy to
oppress the minority, democracy per se is the opposite of a dictatorship.
While it is not unreasonable to state that the task of any democratic
culture is to balance the rights of the individual with the will of the
majority, to say that democracy is dictatorship is some pretty heinous spin.
I don't think anyone would disagree with what you have posted here, which
doesn't make the idea that "democracy is dictatorship of the majority" any
less funny. Kind of like if I said "freedom is just people coercing you
into making decisions", a quintessential way of maneuvering an inflammatory
word in there to impart negative spin.
And when I say, "You've got to be kidding", that's just an expression. Kind
of like "Gimme a break!", etc. I did not literally think he's kidding, but
it's still funny.
> I too just started reading about a week ago. I've been searching
> for something
> better for years...yadda yadda yadda. I've just ordered the SVS
> starter kit and
> I'm gearing up to do some pretty serious information digestion
> over the next
> couple months. Is anyone else reading this in New Jersey?
> Joe Jackson wrote:
> > And I continue to be entertained by your statements about democracy.
> > "[democracy] is... a dictatorship of the majority..."? You have to be
> > kidding. As opposed to a dictatorship of the minority, dare I say?
> This wasn't addressed to me, but I wanted to comment.
> A pure and unfettered democracy in which the will of the people
> on a minute by
> minute basis to impose regulation of all kinds on the dissenters could
> reasonably be called "a dictatorship of the majority." I see it
> like this:
> there were a bunch of dictators who were bad. The gave way to
> monarchies in
> which power was spread to varying degrees among more people. This was an
> improvement, but still had a long way to go. We kept this trend
> of distributed
> power and liberty up and arrived in a world where democracy is
> really considered
> _it_. But I think we're not done in this evolution. While the
> majority has the
> power to enslave the minority, the system is still corrupt. The
> US is better
> than some other democracies because our bill of rights (for
> instance) limits
> what The People can do. Lots of limitations, or broad
> limitations keep the
> majority from imposing their dictatorial power on minorities
> (meaning only the
> group of those who disagree with the majority on any given
> issue). I think the
> US has a ways to go yet in confirming the unalienable power of
> the individual as
> a sovereign entity rather than just a cog in the machine.
> This may be the opinion that he was expressing. There are a fair
> number who
> would agree with all or most of what I've said, so it's not just an inane
> viewpoint. He needn't be "kidding."
> Christopher Weeks
> (Startup wannabe)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:17:13 EST