Democracy is a logical fallacy

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by -1- » Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:24 am

philosopher wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:34 pm
-1- wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:38 pm
philosopher wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:35 pm
Democracy = Majority is always right.
I am sorry, but this basic premise is dead wrong. It is not true. If you build an argument on it, your argument will be invalid.

Now, you could start with "Democracy=Majority always wins." That would be true.
The majority believes they are right. This is not necessarily true. You can't take it as a true statement. The majority of voters believe in foolish stuff that experts say are wrong. This statement is also unfounded. The majority says the experts are wrong, and the people are right. Untrue again.

For the simple reason that people may vote for things that are wrong, untrue, and they know it. There is no rule, philosophical, social, psychological, that says otherwise, or excludes this possibility.

But even if this possibility would be excluded, there is lots of precedence to show that not every voter votes. Most voters in democracies don't vote. Therefore maybe you should rephrase your claim by saying "most people who vote against experts' opinions... etc.


Therefore democracy should be abolished for the sake of the rule of experts and the praise of FACTS rather than "gut feelings"! We must vote on that, however, as the present rules prescribe that the change in the system must be accepted by the majority voters. Ay, there is the rub.
Red remarks are by me, -1-.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by Charm » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:55 am

Let me explain this argument thing.. As Voltaire said: If you like to spin me a line of bullshit, Define your Terms... Martians are beyond belief, and democracy is not.. People understand it apart from the the power to vote, but as a generally held morality, that people are equal.. What ever radicals on either end may say, not one is advocating for violence to any degree.. They would get howled down.. It would be too outrageous to bear..

What you need to realize is that the greatest good for the greatest number is still an essential goal for government, even if the rulers have forgotten it.. Aristotle said governments are created for good, and so does our declaration, and so does the constitution- in simple wording.. All these agree that good is the aim of government, but as our government becomes their government and as it grows less democratic, the good that government is supposed to make possible is now impossible.. I could trust you to judge my welfare as nearly your own.. Perhaps some third party could be trusted to make possible our happiness; but we are talking of over hundreds of thousand for each representative.. This Great Number, this ratio of winners to losers does not obligate my representative to consider my good, but only his own.. How many people must he help, and how many may he not help and still hold his office???.. We do not have democracy, but only majority rule that was burdened with prior restraint for the people with privilege..

Who can argue that the House, our sole democratic institution should try to represent so many with so few.. This was an extra- constitutional change that has never been explained or sold to the people.. They just fixed the number of members while the populations was clearly growing, and when some one objected, (Montana) -the Scotus said the house could make their own rules... Since this was a change, and since those people of the past had tried to hold to the wording of the constitution, And because this change changed the idea, effect, and essence of the House, our House- this change should have been brought before the people, but democracy was already in the hands of money, and When they voted to fix the number of representative it was to make the house more manageable.. Manageable to whom??? Where is manageable government listed as a goal of the government??? When their number in the House is small, and their needs are great, and there is a pile of money on the table- they become a seller's house.. They don't want to be the last one to sell out, or say good bye...

If Democracy is a way of achieving the good that we cannot expect others of their own will to give to us, and to have it, then we must allow it, and this is a representation, -the physical manifestation of freedom as the ability for each to seek his own good to the extent that it harms no other.. There are times when majority rule is close enough, but reading Santayana on America, that past was not too distant when people could put away their political differences and follow the leader.. In that time period between us and he, our number has perhaps tripled, but no greater number of representatives have come to us..

One Constitutional change that has murdered the working class has been the income tax because undemocratic government has used that law undemocratic-ly to rob the rich for the cost of a government that was not working for them, and was taxing them into poverty to feed profits to the rich who were paying for their re-elections... Would the people vote for this situation???? They wanted tax fairness, and fairness was promised.. Could we vote on this today, with the government owned by the rich, and making laws for the benefit of the rich, would it be possible to change the effect, if not the constitutionality of that law??? If not then we do not have democracy just- because the people are not allowed a vote on their laws, or on how they will be enforced.. Working people have the vast majority of the cost of government loaded on their shoulders, and for that honor have not received on new privilege, or right..

Democracy has always meant consensus, and that has meant enlisting everyone to pursue a certain course, or action...We have no consensus..To say democracy is people politically divided, and deliberately divided to hold a certain party in power, and who have only the power to decide who will be corrupted against them- is not democracy.. To get the best out of democracy people need to be able to vote on every change that may affect them while having no power to vote on issues that cannot be shown to affect them.. The term is: Standing.. Why is some one in Seattle able to vote on the color of my shirt.. This is entirely possible... People have the power to use their vote to deny others their rights, and have no opportunity to vote themselves more rights; -and is this democracy???

Too many are electing too few to offices which will corrupt them, and fill their bank accounts.. In the process, in this deeply divided society, fully half the people do not have representation they voted for... Is this democracy???.. We are seeing a society divided, and destroyed by halves.. There will always be a majority to vote the minority into poverty, war, and extinction.. Consider this fact, that all civilizations have been created out of conquest, and the purpose of the state with its laws was to maintain peace between those elements making up society.. Majority rule is not keeping us united, not giving us peace, but is dividing us, and it is making civil war, war, and invasion more likely.. As much as before the Civil War, we are a house divided.. If this is the privilege of the parties, to divide and weaken us, then show me where their privileges are listed in the constitution.. They have the right of assembly, and more.. If; -We would not choose to be divided if we were a democracy, then why are we allowing the parties to divide us, and cooperate only in doing us no Good??? It is because we are no democracy.. And we can hardly divide the term when our rulers have done so much to sow division, and mutual antipathy.

This is the question: How can we have privileges which take far more than a majority to deny, and still keep our rights.. I Ask, Because; Rights are essential to life, but privilege is essential to power, and power is essential to wealth.. Would we vote to grow ever poorer and always be poor and vote that they will grow more wealthy while we suffer degradation and poverty.. It is possible, because by going along in that social, moral democratic sense, that is what we are doing.. I am just less inclined to do so, and because so many must consider their own survival, that if we cooperated with each other, we would have democracy apart from the government as it stands..

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by Charm » Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:05 pm

artisticsolution wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:55 pm
philosopher wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:35 pm
Democracy = Majority is always right.

Democracy = Majority is always right...

Until they change their minds and a new definition of "right" becomes the trend.

That's the beauty of democracy...it's constantly changing. It makes sure people are not chained to a torturous ideology forever.

People are too stupid to know what is best for them. Democracy sees to it they don't have to suffer their stupid choices forever.
Compared to any absolutist or autocratic rule, democracy has an infinite ability to learn, and change..

philosopher
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by philosopher » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:15 pm

Charm wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:55 am
Too many are electing too few to offices which will corrupt them, and fill their bank accounts.. In the process, in this deeply divided society, fully half the people do not have representation they voted for... Is this democracy???.. We are seeing a society divided, and destroyed by halves.. There will always be a majority to vote the minority into poverty, war, and extinction.. Consider this fact, that all civilizations have been created out of conquest, and the purpose of the state with its laws was to maintain peace between those elements making up society.. Majority rule is not keeping us united, not giving us peace, but is dividing us, and it is making civil war, war, and invasion more likely.. As much as before the Civil War, we are a house divided.. If this is the privilege of the parties, to divide and weaken us, then show me where their privileges are listed in the constitution.. They have the right of assembly, and more.. If; -We would not choose to be divided if we were a democracy, then why are we allowing the parties to divide us, and cooperate only in doing us no Good??? It is because we are no democracy.. And we can hardly divide the term when our rulers have done so much to sow division, and mutual antipathy.

This is the question: How can we have privileges which take far more than a majority to deny, and still keep our rights.. I Ask, Because; Rights are essential to life, but privilege is essential to power, and power is essential to wealth.. Would we vote to grow ever poorer and always be poor and vote that they will grow more wealthy while we suffer degradation and poverty.. It is possible, because by going along in that social, moral democratic sense, that is what we are doing.. I am just less inclined to do so, and because so many must consider their own survival, that if we cooperated with each other, we would have democracy apart from the government as it stands..
Thank you very much for this post.

I'm going to answer your question:

What about a constitution that defines citizen rights as not only the right to vote, free speech etc. but also the right to welfare entitlements like Basic Income - that is, money given monthly to sustain yourself in your life, to afford a humble home, food, clothing, electricity etc. without requirement of work or other demands which are essentially slavery of the employers = the rich enslaving the workers?

This will free the citizens. This right should be granted in the constitution as, say 80-90 % of the established minimum income as Basic Income, only subject to reduction when other income is earned instead (like say 30 % off the Basic Income when you earn something, when the Basic Income turns into 0, you only pay taxes, no further reductions in anything). This will keep incentive to work, liberate the workers and create a healthy society where nobody can be deprived of their living just because they have another political opinion than their employers.

The constitution should entitle all people the right to free assembly and free speech against the government, but it cannot be changed without 3/4 of the voters voting "yes" to reform the constitution. This will make it virtually impossible to take away these rights/privileges of the people for any government, no matter how authoritarian it is.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:20 pm

"What about a constitution that defines citizen rights as not only the right to vote, free speech etc. but also the right to welfare entitlements like Basic Income - that is, money given monthly to sustain yourself in your life, to afford a humble home, food, clothing, electricity etc. without requirement of work or other demands which are essentially slavery of the employers = the rich enslaving the workers?"

Who pays for it?

Where does this money come from?

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by Charm » Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:59 am

philosopher wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:15 pm
Charm wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:55 am
Too many are electing too few to offices which will corrupt them, and fill their bank accounts.. In the process, in this deeply divided society, fully half the people do not have representation they voted for... Is this democracy???.. We are seeing a society divided, and destroyed by halves.. There will always be a majority to vote the minority into poverty, war, and extinction.. Consider this fact, that all civilizations have been created out of conquest, and the purpose of the state with its laws was to maintain peace between those elements making up society.. Majority rule is not keeping us united, not giving us peace, but is dividing us, and it is making civil war, war, and invasion more likely.. As much as before the Civil War, we are a house divided.. If this is the privilege of the parties, to divide and weaken us, then show me where their privileges are listed in the constitution.. They have the right of assembly, and more.. If; -We would not choose to be divided if we were a democracy, then why are we allowing the parties to divide us, and cooperate only in doing us no Good??? It is because we are no democracy.. And we can hardly divide the term when our rulers have done so much to sow division, and mutual antipathy.

This is the question: How can we have privileges which take far more than a majority to deny, and still keep our rights.. I Ask, Because; Rights are essential to life, but privilege is essential to power, and power is essential to wealth.. Would we vote to grow ever poorer and always be poor and vote that they will grow more wealthy while we suffer degradation and poverty.. It is possible, because by going along in that social, moral democratic sense, that is what we are doing.. I am just less inclined to do so, and because so many must consider their own survival, that if we cooperated with each other, we would have democracy apart from the government as it stands..
Thank you very much for this post.

I'm going to answer your question:

What about a constitution that defines citizen rights as not only the right to vote, free speech etc. but also the right to welfare entitlements like Basic Income - that is, money given monthly to sustain yourself in your life, to afford a humble home, food, clothing, electricity etc. without requirement of work or other demands which are essentially slavery of the employers = the rich enslaving the workers?

This will free the citizens. This right should be granted in the constitution as, say 80-90 % of the established minimum income as Basic Income, only subject to reduction when other income is earned instead (like say 30 % off the Basic Income when you earn something, when the Basic Income turns into 0, you only pay taxes, no further reductions in anything). This will keep incentive to work, liberate the workers and create a healthy society where nobody can be deprived of their living just because they have another political opinion than their employers.

The constitution should entitle all people the right to free assembly and free speech against the government, but it cannot be changed without 3/4 of the voters voting "yes" to reform the constitution. This will make it virtually impossible to take away these rights/privileges of the people for any government, no matter how authoritarian it is.
Many of the defined rights of the present constitution are in fact, privileges.. A right is essential to life or to happiness and so they should be couched and defined in the most general terms.. Then the evidence must be on the side of those who want to limit rights for them to limit what others find essential... Rights are self limiting.. My right to drive fast though it makes me happy is limited by your right to peace and safety... But of privilege, there should be none... If some dire condition arose that forced the people to grant a privilege, it needs to have an expiration date.. No one should have to trouble to end a condition that serves them no good, and costs them rights, because privilege is a limit on the rights of we the people to have society work for us..

Entitled is a good word to understand.. Much is made of entitlements, but the reason the people are entitled is because they own the commonwealth, and they deserve a fair return on their property.. No one has a clear title to the commonwealth except the people, and when land is sold or given, what is sold or given is rights in that commonwealth; but no one can remove justly any part of our wealth.. I understand that people do so, but this is the crime of treason.. They are in fact, empowering our enemies of which number they are.. It took a civil war to prove who owns this land and property.. We could not emancipate the slaves if we did not own them.. This place is ours and we need to fetch it back..

It is pointless to talk of government granting rights to people when we are granting authority to government.. The government recognizes rights or does not.. At this moment they allow those with privilege to attack our rights, but as we lose them, we are forced to recognize how essential rights are to life and to happiness.. Consider the process of law when one is charged with a capital crime.. From arrest to conviction to correction or execution, the prisoner is one by one deprived of rights until they can be legally killed.. This is not done lightly.. All true rights have in common that they are supportive, and essential for life.. Government does not grant it.. We do not grant them.. We recognize our personal needs and the need of society for civility..

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re:

Post by Charm » Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:27 am

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:20 pm
"What about a constitution that defines citizen rights as not only the right to vote, free speech etc. but also the right to welfare entitlements like Basic Income - that is, money given monthly to sustain yourself in your life, to afford a humble home, food, clothing, electricity etc. without requirement of work or other demands which are essentially slavery of the employers = the rich enslaving the workers?"

Who pays for it?

Where does this money come from?
We the people have the power to make this land work for us... If that means those in direct possession of the land must pay taxes, then so, What??? All societies demand taxes.. What do the people have.. If I "Own" 200,000 acres in South Dakota, then I own nothing but rights in it.. Sure.. I can take my living from it; but the people who actually own it, the We the People of the United States, who actually own the land and physically defend my rights in the land, and defend my rights in the courts, and generally respect my right to exclusive occupancy need their cut or else they have no reason to defend any of my rights in the least.. This is supposed to be a pay as you go society and now it is loaded with debt because the rich in government
will not ask the rich to pay their share..

When working people became the support of the government, they received no privilege or right in return.. We were loaded with that obligation to help build big fortunes into great fortunes... The rich must pay for their privilege, as privilege is an advantage against rights.. Try to understand.. Privilege grants an advantage, and that advantage means for example that one with more property has an advantage over those with less property, and both have an advantage over those with only their rights.. Privilege is protection from the people... What does it take to change a privilege??? In the case of slavery, it took a war.. It would take an overwhelming majority to change the constitution, and that change is needed, but the people are divided.. In addition to the Civil War, Our Revolutionary War was fought against privilege only to have the constitution hand the defeat to the people who risked their lives for the states..Our house is divided between privilege and rights, and privilege is winning.. What the privileged fail to grasp is that revolution is easier than changing the constitution, and when the people realize this, the constitution is finished..

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:22 pm

"We the people have the power to make this land work for us... If that means those in direct possession of the land must pay taxes, then so, What???"

Don't know how it goes where you are, but here in Louisiana land & home owners pay property taxes.

Good luck trying to pay for everything on property taxes. Try that and you'll end up with even more property-less folks and less revenue. Of course, property taxes could fund minimal police, minimal courts, minimal millitary (but that means you have to give up the teat).

#

"The rich must pay for their privilege, as privilege is an advantage against rights"

Pay their 'fair share', eh?

Good luck makin' them do diddlly squat. Envy is never a sound foundation for action.

-----

No, the solution not is wresting power from the other guy,

The solution is to make it so the other guy, and what he does, doesn't matter.

Instead of lookin' to recast government in your own image, work to minimize it.

The first step is to self-rely. Simply: if you don't need a thing/a person, that thing/person has no hold on you.

More formally: back candidates who promise to minimize the role of gvernment, and -- in the minimizing of government -- minimize the skewing of government toward the wealthy. Don't get me wrong: I favor the wealthy too (the poor never hired me when I worked 9 to 5, and the poor don't hire me now that I self-employ), but -- yeah -- things are rigged to favor the rich. What needs to be stripped from them are certain legal statuses (shelters, loopholes, incorporation) not money (as aside: takin' all the rich folks' money would just make them poor too...it won't make the current poor any better off).

And what's the result of you self-relying and minimal government?

An unrestrained market(place).

In an unrestrained market there's no equity. What's there is even better than equity: opportunity.

In the state controlled market we have now, there's no equity (only faux equity), and increasingly less opportunity (which is to be expected...wider, deeper regulation might make you safer, but it binds you up at the same time).

Correct the problem(s) by letting people succeed without restriction and help, and fail without a safety net. Protecting the rich today, or protecting the poor tomorrow, will get you to the exact same place: nowhere.

Basically what I'm sayin' here is: get the hell out of the way and leave folks alone...stop coddling this group, protecting that group, lambasting this third group. Leave envy behind. Stop blaming 'them' for your lacks.

And, for Crom's sake: drop all this 'we, the people', shit. There's no 'we': there's me, and you, and him, and her, etc.

And: dump the federal reserve, restore gold-backing to money (better still, back money with energy), hang 2/3 of the lawyers by the neck till dead, ban Marx from the public square, and stop fuckin' whinin' cuz some jackhole looks at you too hard.

And: dump Keynes on his dead retarded ass and think 'Austrian'.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by Charm » Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:25 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:22 pm
"We the people have the power to make this land work for us... If that means those in direct possession of the land must pay taxes, then so, What???"

Don't know how it goes where you are, but here in Louisiana land & home owners pay property taxes.

Good luck trying to pay for everything on property taxes. Try that and you'll end up with even more property-less folks and less revenue. Of course, property taxes could fund minimal police, minimal courts, minimal millitary (but that means you have to give up the teat).

Take it in the inevitable direction that it is headed: If one person owned all of the land, the land would still have to support all of the people, and it is commonwealth.. Our name is on the title and that is why we are entitled to a share of the produce of this land in private hands.. When people buy property they buy rights in it.. We are its owners, and if the rich will not support the government that support their rights, then their land is up for grabs..


#

"The rich must pay for their privilege, as privilege is an advantage against rights"

Pay their 'fair share', eh?

Good luck makin' them do diddlly squat. Envy is never a sound foundation for action.

Necessity is..

-----

No, the solution not is wresting power from the other guy,

The solution is to make it so the other guy, and what he does, doesn't matter.

Instead of lookin' to recast government in your own image, work to minimize it.

The first step is to self-rely. Simply: if you don't need a thing/a person, that thing/person has no hold on you.

This is certain true of money.. The people are liquidated into poverty because the rich control the money supply, and since it is paper, it is worthless.. What is needed is for us to not give value to that which robs us of value, and devalues us..


More formally: back candidates who promise to minimize the role of gvernment, and -- in the minimizing of government -- minimize the skewing of government toward the wealthy. Don't get me wrong: I favor the wealthy too (the poor never hired me when I worked 9 to 5, and the poor don't hire me now that I self-employ), but -- yeah -- things are rigged to favor the rich. What needs to be stripped from them are certain legal statuses (shelters, loopholes, incorporation) not money (as aside: takin' all the rich folks' money would just make them poor too...it won't make the current poor any better off).


Why would I make small what I need large, or make large what I need small??? The Government in a democracy is a dynamic.. The size of government should never be an abstraction, but should always reflect the need.. If it needs to be large, it should be large, and if it does not, then it should shrink.. To say out of the blue that government should be small just because the rich do not want to support it is nonsense.. The government is not doing its job, and its job was stated in the preamble.. If it refuses to do its job, it does not need to be smaller..It needs to wink out of existence..


And what's the result of you self-relying and minimal government?

An unrestrained market(place).

In an unrestrained market there's no equity. What's there is even better than equity: opportunity.

In the state controlled market we have now, there's no equity (only faux equity), and increasingly less opportunity (which is to be expected...wider, deeper regulation might make you safer, but it binds you up at the same time).

Correct the problem(s) by letting people succeed without restriction and help, and fail without a safety net. Protecting the rich today, or protecting the poor tomorrow, will get you to the exact same place: nowhere.

Basically what I'm sayin' here is: get the hell out of the way and leave folks alone...stop coddling this group, protecting that group, lambasting this third group. Leave envy behind. Stop blaming 'them' for your lacks.

And, for Crom's sake: drop all this 'we, the people', shit. There's no 'we': there's me, and you, and him, and her, etc.

And: dump the federal reserve, restore gold-backing to money (better still, back money with energy), hang 2/3 of the lawyers by the neck till dead, ban Marx from the public square, and stop fuckin' whinin' cuz some jackhole looks at you too hard.

And: dump Keynes on his dead retarded ass and think 'Austrian'.
Who do you like besides you???

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:38 pm

meh

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by romanv » Fri Nov 16, 2018 1:00 pm

philosopher wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:35 pm
Democracy = Majority is always right.

This is the reason I am not a democrat, and never will be. I do believe in the right to speak against the government, and even the right to challenge the opinions of the majority of people.

Socrates was executed because the majority thought he deserved no right to life because he spoke against the majority of the opinions of the people.

Abolish democracy, for the sake of human rights!
Your definition is wrong. So there is no fallacy.

Democracy is the adherence to popular sovereignty. ie the doctrine that sovereign power is vested in the people

It doesn't mean the majority is always right, but it does mean that the state should conform to their will. And in the end citizens will live with the consequences of their choices, and so they will ensure that the state acts in their best interests in the long run, even if they are wrong from time to time.

The reason why it doesn't work now is because the electoral system is undemocratic, and based on the electoral model of 'lead, follow, or get out of the way'. This prevents (well, makes it very difficult) citizens from being able to make the state work in their best interests. The solution is a 'None of the Above' option, where if more than 50% of voters choose it, the election must be re-run. This makes the electoral system democratic and function as it should, ensuring the state will conform to their will and work in their best interests.

Can voters' will abolish democracy?

No.

Why?

If sovereign power is vested in the people, then they must have power, to have power they must be free, to be free they must have rights that ensure their freedom.

A non-exhaustive list would be:

Freedom of expression
Presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial
Right to free association
The right to live without discrimination

The power of the state rests upon your individual sovereignty. The state does not protect your rights in a democracy, it is constrained by your rights.

Any state that strips citizens of their rights, is by definition not a democracy, but a tyranny.

You can check this thread for a more thorough exposition.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=25495

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by bahman » Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:32 pm

philosopher wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:35 pm
Democracy = Majority is always right.

This is the same as the logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Populum, appeal to the majority, the belief that any argument is valid if the majority believes in it...

Well, if the majority so choose to believe fairies visit us from Mars, it must be true!

- I guess not...

In Turkey they abolished human rights, like the right to free speech, free assembly and re-instated dictatorship - all with the majority of the vote.

Many other dictators throughout history came to power through democracy, and by the majority of votes, abolished democracy.

This is the reason I am not a democrat, and never will be. I do believe in the right to speak against the government, and even the right to challenge the opinions of the majority of people.

Socrates was executed because the majority thought he deserved no right to life because he spoke against the majority of the opinions of the people.

Abolish democracy, for the sake of human rights!
Well, the well functioning any social system including democracy depends on how well educate is the society.

gaffo
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by gaffo » Wed May 08, 2019 4:31 am

philosopher wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:35 pm
Democracy = Majority is always right.

This is the same as the logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Populum, appeal to the majority, the belief that any argument is valid if the majority believes in it...

Well, if the majority so choose to believe fairies visit us from Mars, it must be true!

- I guess not...

In Turkey they abolished human rights, like the right to free speech, free assembly and re-instated dictatorship - all with the majority of the vote.

Many other dictators throughout history came to power through democracy, and by the majority of votes, abolished democracy.

This is the reason I am not a democrat, and never will be. I do believe in the right to speak against the government, and even the right to challenge the opinions of the majority of people.

Socrates was executed because the majority thought he deserved no right to life because he spoke against the majority of the opinions of the people.

Abolish democracy, for the sake of human rights!
I affirm Republicanism, and why i am a Democrat (70's era - not the current identity/PC crap). Republicans are all for dictatorship via Theocracy.

Libertarians are the most apt today, but sadly too small in number.

that leaves them and Reichbuglicons out of the picture. least offensive are the Democrats - join me and pulling them back to thier proper place as constitutional lovers - 1970's ilk Dems.

gaffo
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by gaffo » Wed May 08, 2019 4:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:34 pm

I'm not American. But I admire the foresight in some of this. They certainly made great strides in the formulation of democracy -- and not on the basis of some idealization of the majority, but on the more pragmatic considerations of both the rights of men and limited trustworthiness of mankind.
sadly we've lost the respect you and i have of the concept you speak of - america is all about identity victimhood egoism now.

where you from if i may ask - you know of my nation's founding philoshy implies you may be from one of the former UK colonies?

if so your founders affirmed the same concept as mine did, and even if the construction of your gov is different, its not all that different and it at its core is it the same (ideally - but as i stated my nation is now corrupt and no longer affirms its own philosophy = not in practice - sadly). not for the last 25 yrs or so........its been a slow decline.

gaffo
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Democracy is a logical fallacy

Post by gaffo » Wed May 08, 2019 4:48 am

philosopher wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:36 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:25 pm
Democracy is a system of government not a logical fallacy and therefore comparing it to one is actually fallacious
And it is not that the majority decision is always right but the one that is implemented for reasons of practicality
I think the OP was not saying "democracy IS a logical fallacy." I think he was saying, "Belief in democracy requires us to believe a logical fallacy." That's quite a different proposition. He isn't guilty of a category error there.

But I agree with you that practicality, not ultimate "rightness" is the reason given by Paine for preferring democracy over dictatorship or hereditary monarchy.
You're right, what I meant was democracy is LIKE (read: similar to) a logical fallacy, the title is wrong, but too late for me to edit.

What I meant by the logical fallacy is that belief in democracy to make any rules of law, is similar the Argumentum ad Populum-fallacy.

Don't know how to explain further, but you did it quite well. Thanks!

Besides, there is an alternative to democracy that is not dictatorship: Rule by experts!
mob rule is always bad, that is why we have our 9th amendment - such things as old common law (freedom to congregate with friends of your choosing, freedom to marry, freedom to use your Jury Pardon to pardon any accused of a crime - even if you know the accused is guilty of the crime, though think the law is wrong - and so aquit and judge the law not the accussed) - all predate the US Constitution, yet such rights are affirmed by it via our 9th.

BTW the 9th is the best of the US Constitution IMO.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests