Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Sign Up

Recommended Posts

I heard the argument that "democracy is rule by the majority" in grade school, and then it immediately went into a tangent on how rule by the majority was essentially mob rule. Looking back there was some definite bias on behalf of both the teachers and the authors of the reference material. As I understand it one of the defining traits that distinguish democracy as an organized system of government from simple mob rule is safeguards that at least in theory, and ideally in practice, prevent the majority from using their leverage to abuse the minority.

On the other side of the coin, the defining criteria we were given for a republic meant that specific officials were represented by people to operate in government and act on their behalf and / or in their interest. Because of the way these representatives were chosen - by elections - the United States was billed not as a republic or a democracy, but rather a "democratic republic" or something like that. The nuances that actually separated "real" republics from "fake" republics were never in the study materials, or on any test. Also the distinctions between different types of democratic systems, like Athenian democracy, never came up.

I also remember class and school wide elections for some sort of mock government system (I want to say "student body president" or something like that) in high school, which involved everyone voting for somebody who couldn't actually do anything. It was an important lesson on how much our votes counted; they didn't. Maybe not the lesson the school wanted us to learn, but it was the lesson they tried to teach.

Link to post
29 minutes ago, DrBorderline said:

I heard the argument that "democracy is rule by the majority" in grade school, and then it immediately went into a tangent on how rule by the majority was essentially mob rule. Looking back there was some definite bias on behalf of both the teachers and the authors of the reference material. As I understand it one of the defining traits that distinguish democracy as an organized system of government from simple mob rule is safeguards that at least in theory, and ideally in practice, prevent the majority from using their leverage to abuse the minority.

On the other side of the coin, the defining criteria we were given for a republic meant that specific officials were represented by people to operate in government and act on their behalf and / or in their interest. Because of the way these representatives were chosen - by elections - the United States was billed not as a republic or a democracy, but rather a "democratic republic" or something like that. The nuances that actually separated "real" republics from "fake" republics were never in the study materials, or on any test. Also the distinctions between different types of democratic systems, like Athenian democracy, never came up.

I also remember class and school wide elections for some sort of mock government system (I want to say "student body president" or something like that) in high school, which involved everyone voting for somebody who couldn't actually do anything. It was an important lesson on how much our votes counted; they didn't. Maybe not the lesson the school wanted us to learn, but it was the lesson they tried to teach.

Lol. I've learned your vote counts, but about this much. Take the number of voters including you. Now add a period to the beginning and make it a percentage. Boom, that's it. Also, schools have taught the idea of republic wrong for years. A republic is what we have. Democracy, as you said, is quite literally mob rule. I've learned not only that our voice hardly counts, but that, at a certain number of people voting, there are so many people that no one has a voice. If you cast one vote, but then someone else casts the opposite vote and you're now neutralized. Now take 3 million people. Have them all vote. You get so many votes that you can't focus on only one vote at a time, so the voters quite literally drown their own voices out. The way to make your voice 100% worth what it is no matter what is to govern yourself and no others. Then your opinion decides what happens to you, not others'.

Link to post
9 hours ago, omovladz said:

Lol. I've learned your vote counts, but about this much. Take the number of voters including you. Now add a period to the beginning and make it a percentage. Boom, that's it. Also, schools have taught the idea of republic wrong for years. A republic is what we have. Democracy, as you said, is quite literally mob rule. I've learned not only that our voice hardly counts, but that, at a certain number of people voting, there are so many people that no one has a voice. If you cast one vote, but then someone else casts the opposite vote and you're now neutralized. Now take 3 million people. Have them all vote. You get so many votes that you can't focus on only one vote at a time, so the voters quite literally drown their own voices out. The way to make your voice 100% worth what it is no matter what is to govern yourself and no others. Then your opinion decides what happens to you, not others'.

Actually the point I was trying to make was that there is a distinction between Democracy and Mob Rule, but I covered a lot of ground in that last post and I might not have made that clear. The biggest counter-argument I've heard involves large groups of people using their greater numbers of votes to alter or a repeal a law that suits them. The thing is, if the USA is technically some sort of republic, then the same thing happens - case in point, all the "voter fraud" being played up in several states and used as justification for massive voter ID regulations and other safeguards, which have made it increasingly difficult for people who have a legitimate vote to cast to be considered eligible to do so, especially minority demographics.

Nobody ever did explain why having a democracy suddenly had people break the rules when it was convenient for them, while pretending that the same thing didn't also happen in every other system of government, which is why I suspected personal bias on the parts of the teachers.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 years later...
  • 1 month later...

The only government I trust to have my best interests in mind is the one I'm in control of.  Since I'm not in control of any government though, I tend to lean more towards the lib-right end of the scale most of the time; my philosophy towards people of other ideologies is that they can believe what they want as long as they're not hurting other people, allow freedom of expression and association in public spaces, keep their politics out of my escapism (something certain groups of people appear increasingly incapable of doing), and especially as long as they don't make their problems into my problems (i.e. by demanding that I pay to fund their personal crusades)...but as soon as they do make them my problems...well, they find out the hard way that I tend to take it personally if the other guy draws first blood.  I don't start fights, I finish them.

Edited by D0nt45k (see edit history)
Link to post
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I remember taking this test years ago and felt it was pretty accurate as I pretty much remember I had almost the exact same results as the poster above me @herrokitty as sort of an anarcho socialist or anarcho communist. I have always been extremely left wing from the youngest age. I remember when I first heard of communism and socialism I instantly fell in love and I thought that this is the ideology I would be willing to die or kill for, it's my new religion and use to troll chat rooms trying to win converts. I am not moderate at all and I am about as partisan as you can get, my record with the Secret Service can attest to that!

The results of this don't surprise me as I figured that the majority of people into fetishes would probably be more liberal permissive on that side of the spectrum because authoritarians generally are more judgmental and not as open to having fetishes or other experiences like that. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but I think that in general that is true.


It would actually be kind of interesting to correlate these results with what specific type of omorashi that people like such as are certain people more into wetting or holding or things of that nature based on their political stance. I suppose people who are willing to pee wherever probably have more of an anarchic bent, whereas people who want people to hold it at any cost might be a little bit more authoritarian.


It also would have been interesting a year ago when I was conducting my poll about whether bathroom access at work should be an inherent right or whether there were circumstances in which a bathroom should be more of a privilege than a fundamental right how people would respond based on their political stance.


Yes this is something I have actually thought about LOL.

Link to post

Mostly indifferent. The ruling party does some things right and some things wrong. Most people are fairly positive towards them because of improving standards of living since the 1980s, but some people are bothered by censorship. For example, pornography is illegal, though no one takes that seriously at all. I wish the censorship was removed, but also appreciate the massive advances we have experienced since the end of the Maoist insanity. It's a miracle that we can go from being poorer than the Congo in 1980, to some of us living comfortable lives now, but I always remember that most people here are much less successful than I am.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

F5E98698-4691-48CD-B152-C10378138BE2.png.dfdcda6ab136b73c49e44363e2ae9bc9.png

Pretty much exactly where I’d expect to be.

I’m actually very “politically active” in the real world, and I’m definitely to the left of the majority of my party, although to my mind that’s no bad thing. 😉 

 

Link to post

I'm not going to post the results from the test, (to lazy lol, maybe later) but I can tell you that I am a libertarian in the USA. I believe the government should focus on defending our rights as free people rather than tax us for the things we may or may not need. And that we shouldn't be taxed by people that might not do good with the money anyway. 

What I'm trying to say is... you should have control of your money and your body without the government getting in the way of what you know is right. You should be able to marry any other adult legally, and exercise your rights given to you in the US constitution. That being said I'm also pro 2nd amendment, not only for self defense, but to remind the government that we won't allow ourselves to be victims of tyranny. And we need to do away with these victimless crimes... for example if somebody wants to buy weed... why punish them? What does that accomplish? Someone wants to try weed and now he's criminal? What about the dealer, now in jail! What did they do wrong?! Nothing!

I know that sounds really aggressive, I'm not trying to make arguments here. I'm just sharing my views, and I don't want to offend anyone obviously. Plus, part of being a libertarian means that I support the right to speak freely, and that goes to literally any other human being of any political alignment! So even if you're against me, it doesn't matter to me. Besides, getting into heated arguments over these types of things is just childish.

 

Edited by Gatto-Italiano (see edit history)
Link to post

Anarchist.  The Ursula LeGuin *Dispossessed* kind, not the sabot-throwing bomb-weilding kind.

Like a lot of conservatives, I believe in the least authority over my head, in the form of government, possible.

Like a lot of liberals, I believe in the most social cooperation and mutual support possible, and that means organizing it formally.

Like a lot of other anarchists, I believe any progress towards more equality, more participation in decision-making, less allocation of decision-making powers to others, is motion in the right direction — i.e., we don't have to overthrow what we've got *and then* try to set up a working anarchy.

 

 

 

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...