Comics, Art, and Fun!
Welcome to WCN Sign in | Join | Help
in
Home Top WebComics Blogs Forums Photos Links Downloads

Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

Last post 02-21-2005, 7:12 AM by Ligand Baby. 18 replies.
Page 1 of 2 (19 items)   1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  1/31/2005 7:25:04 PM 501203

    Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    >.>
    Joy, let's beat this one down again shall we?
     
    <start/>
    In democracy, we have a group of people. These people have different ideas and different designs (the later of which they cannot control). In order to accomplish something, they must take a ballot. In which they vote (make their choice) on the subject (Yes, I Agree or No, I Disagree).
     
    But what is Tyranny of the Majority?
     
    -Definition : A phenomenon characterised by a homogenity of public opinion, caused by the peculiar psychological dynamics of public democratic politics.
     
    -Akira's Definition/Interreptation: A lot of the time it's just people being pissy about not winning an election of some kind (...not proper usage). Tyranny of the Majority in reality is when the public is only agreeing to be apart of the public. To avoid being an outcast/deviant/different.
    (remember, it's my definition)
     
    But what does that mean to you?
     
    Our (the Americans I mean) current issue is the lovely "Gey Marriage" issue. (DO NOT RANT ABOUT GEY MARRIAGE! Only use for references in this discussion). Gey Rights leaders believe that they are being oppressed by the "overwhielming" majority.
     
    Why do they believe this though? Because there is this little thing called the Bill of Rights that says a biiit different. Anyway, onwards!
     
    But for many scenarios, the TotM is nothing but democracy at work with the "media" that we're all suckered in for (I sound so fancy when I make fun of the media!). TotM says that democracy pretty much doesn't work as far as values go (...which has some effect on everything). But is TotM really the problem? Or is it just something somebody made up to sound intellegent?
     
    </end>
     
    <insert your witty comments here>
     
    (note: I left some patches so you guys could comment and I could comment back...so...like...this place would be alive again...)

    ...wee?
  •  2/1/2005 4:55:43 AM 726413 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    I think what you are getting at is: Democracy is a cover for the tyrants who actually control the world through the media, etc. I think you're right.

    Listen, if you ignore for a second all the wars and paranoia that America has been through these past few years, you can't have honestly said that Bush would get a second term. It was only through this 'fear of terror' that he managed to portray himself as a war leader and gain the majority support (...or did he? Thats a question for another day). And as he did win a second term, hes been able to get a large percentage of the population to exercise their homophobic tendencies in the name of religious morality. (btw, 'gay' is spelled with an 'a', or is that 'e' just some crazy Americanization?).

    The problem is, the people don't know what they want and they don't know what they believe in. I honestly feel like we've become a lower class of humans for letting the rich few do whatever they want with us and manipulate us in such a way as to make us think what they're doing is for the best (or in recent times, what they're doing is the lesser of two evils).

    Is this the problem? Well obviously its not the only problem, but removing it would be a huge step in the right direction (however to remove it you'd first need to get rid of greed and ignorance... two characteristics so engraved into the human mind that I don't think removal is possible), if perhaps leaving us all a little blinded by the sun. More than anything else, the lie that you get freedom through democracy pisses me off.

    So in summary, I think 'Tyranny of the Majority' is best put as: People are idiots.

  •  2/1/2005 7:36:29 AM 728084 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    What was said is all basically true.

    The only true advantage of democracy is, if often influenced, freedom of choice. On an election all candidates will tell you why you should vote for them (although what they often do is telling why not vote for the other), they often distort the facts so they only share the point of view they want us to see. On the other hand the other candidates will give us another point of view.

    They may not be the best points of view, and seldom the right or the one that they'll follow, but they are several as an opposition to a dictatorship where there is one and one only.

    Politicians fear this freedom of choice, so they must make sure people aren't to unhappy, even if that sometimes that means saying that you're not happy when you should and that they can fix it.

    Taking the example of gay marriage:

    Some people don't like gays, others don't mind them, yet if you analyse the question how would this people be affected if gays could marry or not? The truth is, they wouldn't.

    But many people are religious, saying that allowing gays to marry is against the religion then suddenly many people will go against them. others will defend gay right to marry because they don't see what's the big deal.

    Gays will continue to be gays and live together being married or not, If they feel better by being married than fine by me. But who out there would become unhappy because they gay neighbours are married? Would they be any different if they're not?

    The ultimate point is that once people are lured into a way of thought, politicians try to take advantage of it on they're own behalf. By focusing the debate in what is polemic they evade the big questions they don't have the answer to.

    The tyranny of the majoraty is the politicians boat. should it sink and the politicians would have to become serious and honest

  •  2/1/2005 11:51:33 AM 729860 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    It's tough to decide which is better: majority tyranny or minority tyranny? Our Constitution tries to balance the two, and maybe that's the best we can do.
  •  2/2/2005 6:09:12 PM 729446 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    Well, campaigning is there to show how well they can talk the talk...remember, the worst things can look like gold under the right speaker. *forgot where that comes in handy...but knows it does*
    meh, they have writers...so nevermind...
     
    Tyranny of the Minority would be where the minority seems much larger than it really is, therefore making it seem like a much larger issue. So that the minority will have more people move over to their side. You can thank people with lots of media coverage, money, and very loud mouths for this.
     
    ...and now I've forgotten my place...*thinks more later*...
     
     
    Also: The original british (slang) word was spelled with an E...we just decided to mix it up with the happy word for our own slang...I'd rather use the british version...(because I've seen an Emohomosexual, and he was not very fun to hang around with)

    ...wee?
  •  2/3/2005 1:54:55 AM 729558 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    Really? I've lived in Britain all my life and I've never heard that. Oh well, must be a southern thing.

    I don't know how aware of our politics you guys are, but the recent pro-fox hunting campaign was a good example of TotM. They used all sorts of arguements (even that the ban was against their rights) to get all kinds of people on their side, people who would normally never be associated with the right-wing upper class. They also took polls claiming that over 80% were against the ban, however these were polls that they took at their own protest rallys!

  •  2/5/2005 7:11:17 AM 730457 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    Yeah, a load of people on Pro-Hunt marches were actually *against* hunting, but were marching to preserve some mythical countryside life ideal. W***ers.
  •  2/6/2005 10:28:50 AM 731568 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    And of course some papers supported the marches, giving the false impression that the majority of the country gives a **** about a few poxy dog trainers, all on account of the fact some of the protesters have cut glass accents 
    "We the unwilling, led by the unknowning, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. In fact, we have been doing so much with so little for so long, we now believe we can do anything, with nothing, in no time at all."

    "Neither by chance nor destiny."

    Polar Bear. Igloo. Radar. Eggman.

    It’s like crack. Crack that slaps you in the face and calls you a ***. And you like it.
  •  2/6/2005 2:50:25 PM 731571 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    Well, as a Canadian, I'm not so connected to the specific issues which you're talking about here, but a couple of years back, I wrote this essay on the topic of - and entitled - The Trryany of the Majority. Seems to me that the themes are fairly universal, so I repost it here:

    ---

    On July 20th, 2001, Carlo Giuliani died in Genoa, Italy. Shot in the face and killed by a police officer for fighting to save the world from what he perceived as a terrible evil.

    I’m not going to argue for or against his point, nor his tactics on that day, because - to be honest - there are a hundred such deaths across the world every month, and, as tragic as the death of any freedom fighter may be, they’re all at their core pretty much the same. What I’m going to talk about, instead, is the people ultimately responsible for his death, and why their role in it is so singularly horrible.

    The G8 conference in Genoa was a meeting of the leaders of the wealthiest, and thus most influential countries on earth. With the exceptions of China and the US, they’re all elected by the majority of their native populations. Although this does give them the tacit approval of their peoples, many of them seem to take this a step further; using this apparent approval as a blanket justification for any action taken in this capacity.

    Case in point: Canada’s prime-minister, Jean Cretien, was reached for comment on this event. His response was typical of his disdain for and ignorance of political protestors: "We are the elected leaders of democracies," he said. "We organize meetings to talk with some of these [non-governmental] leaders. But they cannot replace the governments ... democratically elected. That is a reality in life."

    Perhaps he was right. After all, it’s no secret how Mr. Cretien views protestors. Between physically strangling one in front of a large crowd some four years ago, and his infamous mockery of the peaceful protestors who were pepper-sprayed in the face at the APEC conference some two years ago, everyone knows that Jean Cretien is in no way interested in hearing protestors out. And yet, last year, he was voted in by a landslide for a third term. Therefore, it can logically be assumed that Canadians want a prime-minister who supports brutality towards protestors.

    (And I deviate from this point for just a moment here to acknowledge that in last year’s winter election the only viable alternative to the insane Mr. Cretien was the insane AND idiotic Stockwell Day; making the election an unfortunate task of selecting the lesser of two evils: Cretien may have been elected in spite of his evils only in order to keep the far more evil Day out of office)

    Now, whether or not the same can be said of the other 5 democratically-elected G8 leaders, the fact remains that none of them have come out to condemn the contempt for the views and LIVES of the protestors which were brutalized at this year’s G8 conference. Simply stated, their power comes from being approved-of by the majority. The opinions of the minority of the population who are protesting mean nothing to them.

    And, of course, that’s how democracy works. If you hold a popular opinion, then statistically speaking, you’ll likely get a leader who will support and put into practice those opinions. If you hold an unpopular opinion, your vote means nothing; your wishes will be disregarded, and your society will resolve into a shape contrary to your wishes. In other words, if you have an unpopular opinion, it might just as well be illegal for you to vote.

    And this is what I call the Tyranny of the Majority.

    It is commonly held that democracy is innately preferable to fascism or dictatorship, because it gives power to the people. The problem with this idea is that for someone with an unpopular opinion, there is no difference whatsoever: In a dictatorship, a small portion of the population has all of the decision-making power, and inflicts them upon the rest of the population, for good or ill. In a democracy, a large portion of the population has all of the decision-making power and inflicts them upon the rest of the population, for good or for ill. In neither case does a free-thinker tend to have any power. They’re dictated-to by people who aren’t interested in hearing them out.

    And this, for me, is why Mr. Cretien’s apparent defense of “We are elected leaders of democracies” carries so little weight with me. For that poor boy who died trying to have his voice heard, it makes no difference if The G8 Leaders are “elected leaders” or not: Carlo was being dictated-to. He dissented. And he was killed for it, because he dared to give voice to an unpopular opinion within a democracy. A crime apparently punishable by summary execution. Not because he was a threat to that democracy, but because he was utterly meaningless to it.

    Just like anyone who doesn’t submit to the tyranny of the majority.

  •  2/6/2005 4:28:43 PM 731451 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    I suppose the reason a Dictatorship is seen to be 'more evil' (for want of a better term) than a Democracy, is simple numbers. If the first is a Tyranny of the Minority, and the second a Tyranny of the Majority, the majority aren't going to vote in leaders who would harm them, are they? It would be like Jews supporting the Nazi party in large numbers.

    However, my main point is more along the lines that any system where we each get complete control over our leaders would be fairly untenable. Each of our own ideal leaders are, more or us, ourselves. At this point, we would have a situation more like the Tyranny of the Individual, which could be absolute chaos, as everyone retreats to live on their own private piece of land. The best solution would have to be a compromise, but I would agree that if you're having to vote against a candidate you want to stay out of power, something is wrong with the diplomatic process.
  •  2/6/2005 4:35:46 PM 731439 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    Alas, as I've seen before, free thinkers will not bother to speak outside the "Popular" choice. As with out previous election, there are more than 2 canidates, but the only people that were "worth voting for" were Bush and Kerry.

    There are a lot of free thinkers out there...they just don't bother themselves to speak up.

    I would make a stand up and speak rant, but you get the idea.

    If we all speak out, people will get interested. Sheep out there will move from the herd and try and see what else lies(lays?) beyond the fence. Take a walk in somebody else's shoes and see why some people are different...

    ...okay that's getting a bit off but it's something that you should try...

    *its a double post but something is being all messed up like*
    ...wee?
  •  2/6/2005 4:55:24 PM 731573 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    "the majority aren't going to vote in leaders who would harm them, are they"?

     

    See the american presidential election of 2004 for refutation of this notion. I mean, are you seriously proposing this, or are you just saying "This is why a lot of people might THINK this is the case"?

     

  •  2/7/2005 8:08:36 AM 729117 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    I think a better thing to say would be "the majority aren't going to vote in leaders they think will harm them".

    The elected leaders may have every intention of initiating policies which will aren't in the interest of the majority, but provided they don't come out and tell the voting public they're planning to **** with them most people aren't going to look deep enough to find out the truth.  Alternatively they might have such blind faith in their chosen party's leaders they'll vote for them no matter what, such as with redneck hicks and the republican party


    "We the unwilling, led by the unknowning, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. In fact, we have been doing so much with so little for so long, we now believe we can do anything, with nothing, in no time at all."

    "Neither by chance nor destiny."

    Polar Bear. Igloo. Radar. Eggman.

    It’s like crack. Crack that slaps you in the face and calls you a ***. And you like it.
  •  2/7/2005 8:43:44 PM 729452 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    ...when you research G.W.Bush's history, you don't find much to be proud off...
     
    And I have no idea why they were saying Bush was a people person...I think I'd rip my head off just so I couldn't hear him misuse a phrase so pathetically or talk about the "internets".
     
    Oh well, can't wait 'till the next election.
     
    I think a better thing to say would be "the majority aren't going to vote in leaders they think will harm them".
    And that's why impeachment exists...(though in the US there's only been 2 impeachments and neither of which were successful).
     
    Spree
    I think what you are getting at is: Democracy is a cover for the tyrants who actually control the world through the media, etc. I think you're right.
    Though I didn't say that, it is true. Democracy can work, it just needs unbaised opinions and clear thinkers...which pretty much doesn't exist...thank you UPN...
     
    (yeah...I'm going to hell for that one...)
     
    Much like Marxism and Monarchies, it only works properly in an ideal world. Democracy just happens to be a bit easier to put into reality than Marxism. And Monarchies have had ideal times, it's just that they end and the possiblity of a good/better time is very slim.

    ...wee?
  •  2/9/2005 6:45:49 AM 733341 in reply to 501203

    RE: Tyranny of the Majority? (beating dead horses is fun)

    Well, you could say that Dictatorships would work 'in an ideal world.' There isn't anything inherently bad or flawed in the system. People, on the other hand, are a different matter altogether.
Page 1 of 2 (19 items)   1 2 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML
Powered by Community Server (Personal Edition), by Telligent Systems