I'm sure the majority of people in China think Communism is superior to Capitalism lmao. The majority used to think the earth was flat. The majority used to think a big rock falls faster than a little one.
The majority has a long history of being in the wrong. Again, thank The Lord we are actually a republic instead of a democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I'm sure the wolves love that system but the poor sheep? Not so much lol.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeA minority of people in the world today still think the world is flat.
I'm sure the majority of people in China think Communism is superior to Capitalism lmao. The majority used to think the earth was flat. The majority used to think a big rock falls faster than a little one.The majority has a long history of being in the wrong. Again, thank The Lord we are actually a republic instead of a democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I'm sure the wolves love that system but the poor sheep? Not so much lol.
A minority still think big rocks fall faster.
Originally posted by wxyzSo then we agree the majority understands 1 + 1 = 2 therefore a popular vote where everyone's voting power is the same should be the way to go.
No, because believing false things is not good.Thankfully those types of people (those that don't believe in objective truths) have no power anyways.
Good to know 🙂
Originally posted by Newjakwell, yeah. Under a proportionate system or a single transferable vote system then we still all get the same voting power, but they're more respectful to minor parties than first past the post or the stupid electoral college where a lot of people get no representation at all.
So then we agree the majority understands 1 + 1 = 2 therefore a popular vote where everyone's voting power is the same should be the way to go.Good to know 🙂
Originally posted by Newjak
What exactly is the difference? How many true democracies are in the world?
In a republic, people have inalienable individual rights ( meaning they can never be legally taken away from them no matter how many people vote for them to be removed).
A true democracy is mob rule. It is one of the worst forms of government. In a republic, the individual has rights that protect him or her from the mob.
Here's a good, simple illustration of the two government types in their most basic forms:
Imagine you live in the time period of the Old West but instead of a republic, it is a democracy. Someone accuses you of raping a woman. That person convinces a bunch of other people that you are guilty and they decide that you should be hung for your supposed crime. No one believes your claim that you are innocent. They hang you despite your screams that you did nothing wrong and no one voiced any objections or took up for you.
Now, imagine the same scenario but instead of it being a democracy it is a republic as it actually was historically. Now, when they try to hang you a sheriff happens to come along and say "you can't hang him, he has rights. He will stand trial instead and is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt."
People who praise true democracy so much are the same people who would say it's ok to violate someone's natural, inherent rights as as long as it's for the so-called "greater good"(those people tend to be socialist and commie slimeballs).
People who understand that we are actually a Republic though would say individual can't have his inalienable rights taken away no matter how many people vote for it to happen.
People who love true democracy tend to be collectivists. People who love a republican form of government prefer individualism over collectivist crap.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
In a republic, people have inalienable individual rights ( meaning they can never be legally taken away from them no matter how many people vote for them to be removed).A true democracy is mob rule. It is one of the worst forms of government. In a republic, the individual has rights that protect him or her from the mob.
Here's a good, simple illustration of the two government types in their most basic forms:
Imagine you live in the time period of the Old West but instead of a republic, it is a democracy. Someone accuses you of raping a woman. That person convinces a bunch of other people that you are guilty and they decide that you should be hung for your supposed crime. No one believes your claim that you are innocent. They hang you despite your screams that you did nothing wrong and no one voiced any objections or took up for you.
Now, imagine the same scenario but instead of it being a democracy it is a republic as it actually was historically. Now, when they try to hang you a sheriff happens to come along and say "you can't hang him, he has rights. He will stand trial instead and is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt."
People who praise true democracy so much are the same people who would say it's ok to violate someone's natural, inherent rights as as long as it's for the so-called "greater good"(those people tend to be socialist and commie slimeballs).
People who understand that we are actually a Republic though would say individual can't have his inalienable rights taken away no matter how many people vote for it to happen.
People who love true democracy tend to be collectivists. People who love a republican form of government prefer individualism over collectivist crap.
I would also point out that NO countries (AFAIK) use a majority rules system for this very reason.
Originally posted by Blakemore
Yeah, **** democracy 😬 smh
Correct. Pure Democracy is a terrible governing method.
Pure Democracy always results in majoritarianism which is tyranny of the majority.
Same with minoritarianism which is tyranny of the minority.
In both instances, protections against the majority and minority, what we call Lockean "Natural Rights" which are Life, Liberty, and Property (not "happiness" which is confused for Jefferson's wording in the Declaration of Independence), result in "not a Pure Democracy" and that's a good thing.
Also, the masses can be persuaded, especially in times of unrest and war, to hold terrible positions. Mob Rule is NOT a good thing and it has resulted in some atrocities throughout human history.
This is why you should NEVER EVER EVER support a Pure Democracy system beyond small towns and small cooperatives that operate within more protected rights systems.
Originally posted by dadudemonAs opposed to being ruled by wealthy land owners? Like it or not, Jackson's rise to power was a suffrage movement.
Correct. Pure Democracy is a terrible governing method.Pure Democracy always results in majoritarianism which is tyranny of the majority.
Same with minoritarianism which is tyranny of the minority.
In both instances, protections against the majority and minority, what we call Lockean "Natural Rights" which are Life, Liberty, and Property (not "happiness" which is confused for Jefferson's wording in the Declaration of Independence), result in "not a Pure Democracy" and that's a good thing.
Also, the masses can be persuaded, especially in times of unrest and war, to hold terrible positions. Mob Rule is NOT a good thing and it has resulted in some atrocities throughout human history.
This is why you should NEVER EVER EVER support a Pure Democracy system beyond small towns and small cooperatives that operate within more protected rights systems.