Quote:

---

that i disagree with. majority opinion should not necessarily have control over "as many individual issues as possible".

---

Quote:

---

it sounds like unrestrained democracy and it accounts for only legislative action, and not the judiciary or executive aspects of government. the only protection of individual rights in the face of this otherwise unlimited democracy appears to be a legal sanction of an individual's right to exile himself from the community if he doesn't like whatever burdens it may impose upon him.

---

Quote:

---

mushmaster said:
there's a balance. democracy must exist as a limit on the state, and the state must exist as a limit on democracy.

---

Quote:

---

i can foresee two sorts of 'perfect' hypothetical governments. the first is a totalitarian dictatorship in which the ruler and his deputies are perfectly just. the second is a pure democracy in which the people are perfectly just. neither of these is workable in real life.

---

Quote:

---

i think that the best system that's actually workable in real life is a limited democracy with a constitution and extensive system of checks and balances. pure democracy is not the solution.

---

Quote:

---

mushmaster said:
crobih, i think you are mistaken about the essence of democracy. democracy is not a political end in itself. it exists to serve a purpose.

---

Quote:

---

the state does not exist to make law the will of the majority.

---

Quote:

---

i have a very simply question i would like for you to honestly answer:

do you think it would be a good thing if the will of the majority was, without exception, always made public policy?

---

Quote:

---

mushmaster said:
Democracy is actually just acceptance of the fact that the power is in the people

power to do what?

---

Quote:

---

Democracy is the rule of the people, not the rule of the majority.

you're playing with words now.

---

Quote:

---

what people if not the majority?

would passing a peice of legislation or electing a politician without majority support be an example of democracy?

---

Quote:

---

Though, having people ruling it seems to be more easily to set legitimacy on the decision that will be the will of the majority, than it would be if thewill of minoritywould be looking for hte same minority.

a policy gains no legitimacy because a majority support it.

---

Quote:

---

I think that the only good thing would be if the every single public policy would be passed due to my recomendation.

if the majority wishes to persecute a minority group, this is to become official state policy?

---

Quote:

---

mushmaster said:
i don't know how many here believe that an unlimited democracy is a good form of government, but i know that there are some who do and i was thinking about the whole thing and i realized something that i want to point out.

the very idea of an "unlimited" democracy is a paradox. the "unlimited" part is, in itself, a limit. in an "unlimited" democracy, all people (adults?) are eligible to vote on any issue, and their decision becomes law. what if they vote against this system? what if the majority votes that a minority group (say... blacks, or jews, or non-english speakers) are ineligible to vote?

---

Quote:

---

if this is allowed to become policy, then it isn't an unlimited democracy; people may legally be forbidden from voting. if it is not allowed to become policy, then this is a limit to the power of the majority.

---

Quote:

---

mushmaster said:
No. Demos is not majority, but all.

all decisions must be unanimous then??

---

Quote:

---

It is actually not possible, because if there is no power supporting some decision, that decision is politically irrelevant.

it is impossible to appoint politicians or enact laws without the support of a majority? where have you been for the past few millenia? 

---

Quote:

---

Who is majority on this forum?

depends on what we're talking about.

if it's the 2004 election, those opposed to george bush are the majority.

if it's drug prohibition, those in favor of looser drug laws are the majority.

if it's the death penalty, a different set of people are in the majority.

---

Quote:

---

Or is EVERYBODY majority sometimes?

the word "majority" only has meaning in the context of specific issues. everyone is a part of the majority on some issue. what's the point?

---

Quote:

---

So, if this was democracy, who would actually rule?

the majorities specific to each particular issue would rule on those respective issues.

---

Quote:

---

Though, as people have some dose of common sense, they realize they will become minority sooner or later.

again i have to ask you where the hell your historical perspective went. oppression of minority groups has been rampant througout history.

---

Quote:

---

mushmaster said:
No. It is based on those who have enough power to make others accept their policy. It can actually be minority sometimes, too.



will you please clear this one up very simply. you're getting confusing:

in a democratic decision, what portion of voters must vote in favor of a particular policy for it to become law?

---

Quote:

---

So, you can actually not say by name who is actually majority in this little mind game?

if you need to see the actual outcome of a vote to comprehend this rather simple idea, i suppose we could start a thread on it.

we cannot speak of "the majority" without mentioning a particular characteristic which allows us to segregate the whole into different subgroups which we can then order by size

---

Quote:

---

You are talking about the age that is going to finish very soon.

ah. 

when will this happen?

and what is wrong about prohibiting a majority from enacting a policy which violates minorities? what is wrong about prohibiting a majority from enacting a policy which, according to you, at some point in the near future, they would be too "informed" to enact anyway?

---

Quote:

---

would you please address the fundamental logical flaw in your theory for an unlimited democracy:

can a majority vote to limit the extent of democratic power?

---

Quote:

---

i don't know how many here believe that an unlimited democracy is a good form of government, but i know that there are some who do and i was thinking about the whole thing and i realized something that i want to point out.

---

Quote:

---

the point is to illustrate the theoretical flaws in the idea of unlimited democracy. theoretically, anything supported by a majority is made law in a pure democracy.

---

Quote:

---

the will of the majority cannot legitimize any and all activities of the state.

---

Quote:

---

a public policy is either legitimate or it is not.

---

Quote:

---

i don't understand what is so difficult about this. what is so wrong about establishing a limit on democratic power, such as a bill of rights, and securing liberties which, even at the request of a majority, may not be stripped away from individuals?

---

Quote:

---

That principle exists already -- it's called "communication". 

---

Not really sure why you felt the need to point that out but thanks anyway! 

Quote:

---

Can you not see that with no limits on democratic power (wielded of course by the government), anything goes -- including things that definitely harm others?

---

Quote:

---

There would still be laws which benefit a minority, allowing them to make some good money etc, but have no benefit to the majority of people and may even effect some people negatively. 

---

Why would a majority vote in such a law? But lets get down to it shall we, you are talking about welfare right? Well perhaps a majority would vote to benefit a minority with no benefit to themselves simply because they feel its the right thing to do?

But hey perhaps you'd get your way and open democracy would bring an end to all forms of state welfare..wow Id sure have egg on my lefty face then wouldnt i?  But at least the decision would have been made by the people rather than by a bunch of politicians who would then cream off the savings!

To be honest, we may not be ready for open democracy yet because for it to function successfully I think we need a higher level of social awareness but I do think thats the way we are evolving at the moment.

Quote:

---

Because the majority typically don't understand the law of unintended consequences.

---

Quote:

---

Feelings are not tools of cognition.

---

Quote:

---

the majority of Americans feel drugs should be illegal. Poll after poll after poll has shown this. For them, keeping drugs illegal is "the right thing to do".

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I think you have too low an opinion of "the majority". 100 years ago you would have argued with equal vigour against allowing women the vote I should imagine.

---

Quote:

---

What makes you think that?

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, I'd like to remind you that slavery, witch hunts, and gladiator fights are all things which were once supported by a majority

---

Quote:

---

I just feel that it is the same sense of elitism that led men to believe women could not be trusted with the vote which now leads people to think that we can only be trusted to pick people to make decisions for us.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, which is why I think it is only now that humans have reached a point in societal evolution where we could be trusted with open democracy.

---

Quote:

---

And by the way, if best arguement against open democracy you can come up with is gladiators and witches perhaps you need to have a little think about why you really oppose it?!

---

Quote:

---

mushmaster said:
We are talking about two different things. I am talking about concept of selfgoverning people, you are talking about some aproximation where 50%+1 decides about everything...

you've got it in reverse.

---

Quote:

---

... could you please answer my question clearly?

i'm all about self-governorship. however, democracy is NOT about people governing themselves. it is about a majority governing a minority.

---

Quote:

---

you are not talking about a situation in which decisions are made by more than 50% of voters? how then are decisions made in a democracy?

---

Quote:

---

here's how this works. in a democracy, people vote on public policy decisions. the policy with the largest number of supporters becomes law. simple as that. there are very few public policies which gain (or lose) legitimacy based on the number of supporters. this is the flaw of democracy, and is why democracy is not a political end in and of itself, but only a means to an end.

---

Quote:

---

Lets be concrete. Write down one policy that violates minority. Lets look at it closely. From your point of view. OK?

here's 4:

drug prohibition
slavery

did i really need to tell you that?

---

Quote:

---

your position is that as long as such policies are democratically supported (whatever that means at the moment), they are legitimate. you've attempted to dodge the issue thus far by saying that people wouldn't be so "ignorant" as to enact such policies, that the "golden rule" would save us from the problem, or that this isn't what democracy really means. it doesn't work that way. pure democracy is not a legitimate political goal. democracy has its place, but it is not the role of the state to make majority opinion on every issue law.

---

Quote:

---

GazzBut said:
The rest of the post is the same old paranoia that we will suddenly decide to socially unevolve and bring back slavery...hardly likely. But as I have already said the people would not neccesarily be able to propose issues as this would be chaotic. Instead you would still elect a government whose proposals would then be put to the people. Its fairly simple really. Forget about unlimited democracy and turn your attention to an open democracy where the people are consulted on issues rather than being allowed to propose issues.

---

Quote:

---

Even if the votes didnt go in my favour at least I would know that this is what most people voted for and not just the tiniest minority of the population.

---

Quote:

---

GazzBut said:
Why would a majority vote in such a law? But lets get down to it shall we, you are talking about welfare right? Well perhaps a majority would vote to benefit a minority with no benefit to themselves simply because they feel its the right thing to do?

But hey perhaps you'd get your way and open democracy would bring an end to all forms of state welfare..wow Id sure have egg on my lefty face then wouldnt i?  But at least the decision would have been made by the people rather than by a bunch of politicians who would then cream off the savings!

To be honest, we may not be ready for open democracy yet because for it to function successfully I think we need a higher level of social awareness but I do think thats the way we are evolving at the moment.

---

Quote:

---

pinksharkmark said:
GazzBut writes:

I just feel that it is the same sense of elitism that led men to believe women could not be trusted with the vote which now leads people to think that we can only be trusted to pick people to make decisions for us.

You are being deliberately obtuse. You, better than almost any other poster in this forum, understand quite clearly my position on others making decisions "for us". No one has the right to make those decisions. Not an elected representative, and certainly not the mob. As long as I go about my business peacefully, I get to make my own decisions. As soon as I initiate force against anyone, then -- and only then -- does anyone else get to make a decision.

pinky

---

Quote:

---

You are being deliberately obtuse. 

---

I promise you Im not! Maybe Im having a slow day 

Quote:

---

You, better than almost any other poster in this forum, understand quite clearly my position on others making decisions "for us". 

---

Quote:

---

Who does consult these people? And who does put these on that place? Arent people as whole those about whom you are talking?

---

Quote:

---

but majority support or no, throwing people in jail for smoking a plant because other people don't like the idea of it is wrong.

---

Quote:

---

the problem with that is that few people today vote. even for the presidential election, less than half the electorate turns out to vote.

---

Quote:

---

you would have special interests voting in their pet projects routinely while everyone else was too busy to vote.

---

Quote:

---

If you object to the Patriot Act and the Iraq War the last thing you would want would be a direct vote by the people. The Patriot Act would be a lot more restrictive than it is now and the answer on Iraq would have been overwhelming as well.

---

Quote:

---

Why do you persist in the belief that if anyone disagrees with you they have been manipulated or are a tool of..whatever or are just stupid?

---

Quote:

---

i just don't think that the system you're proposing here would make democracy any more effective at limiting government. such a system would only contribute to the growth of government.

---

Quote:

---

You have not described how it would take power from the federal government at all.

---

Quote:

---

because very little of the electorate will vote for decisions that have little effect on them, even if the effect is negative.

---

Quote:

---

allowing people to draft and enact new laws simply by getting more people to vote in favor than against them is a bad idea though.

---

Quote:

---

Now a citizen veto would be a sweet idea.

---

Quote:

---

mushmaster said:
i'd be very much in favor of a voter-initiated veto. allowing people to draft and enact new laws simply by getting more people to vote in favor than against them is a bad idea though. the last thing we need is more stupid laws, which is exactly what we'd get with such an arrangement.

---

Quote:

---

GazzBut said:

Quote:

---

Now a citizen veto would be a sweet idea.

---

Yeah thats what Ive been saying on here for the last 2 years god dammit!

I never said citizens should propose bills only vote on them, which in effect, is a citizen veto......

---

Quote:

---

What part of AFTER it's voted for by the House and Senate is unclear?

---

Quote:

---

Your faith in a bunch of power crazed backstabbers is admirable, if a little bewildering.

---

Quote:

---

Who are just as likely to be "foolish, ill-infomed and self-centered"

---