🇳🇱
Republican: fascist, authoritarian, Mostly rich old white dudes being racist towards blacks and telling them how they know whats best for them. Their politicians wear red ties
Democrats: fascist, authoritarian, Mostly rich old white dudes being racist towards blacks and telling them how they know whats best for them. Their politicians wear blue ties
@freemo
The longer we keep a two party system the further we will keep this red v blue mentality. I wonder if I will ever see an independent sworn in before I die of climate change.
@Darkayne While the two party system isnt helping , and yea partly the cause I think people becoming polarized is such a deep rooted issue at this point im not sure if we will ever truely see sanity
Democracy is by definition forcing the will of the majority onto the rest of the population. A.k.a. Authoritarianism.
Everyone that votes for party that has an agenda of "doing something" other than dismantling the gang of thieves, known as government, are Authoritarian Tyrant Worshipers.
It is useless semantics what to call it.
> Democracy is by definition forcing the will of the majority onto the rest of the population. A.k.a. Authoritarianism.
Except its literally not. The primary definition of democracy doesnt even use the word majority:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
In fact while there are other secondary definitions that include majority, those definitions apply only when used more generally (as in not specific to the context of national governments)
In fact we only need to look at example to know what you said is false, The USA, the UK, and effectively every nation in the world, doesnt have a simple majority to win. In fact all these nations are designed to have some mechanism to ensure a simple majority, a tyranny of the majority, isnt possible.
You can't have "exercised by [the people] directly or indirectly through a system of representation" without in principle violate "freedom of any given individual", and to me that is "forcing the will"...
Remove the "majority" if you like, it is still Authoritarian, just a matter "how much".
> You can't have "exercised by [the people] directly or indirectly through a system of representation" without in principle violate "freedom of any given individual", and to me that is "forcing the will"...
You can, and we do. The electorial college is an example of that, it ensures that most disseperate cultures and their regions have some agreement on votes... it isnt purely majority based (you need to get close to a majority but can win even without one)... but also is fairly balanced so fringe ideas cant win either.
It is a prime example of democracy that is not a simple majority.
I don't object to Libertarians or libertarians, I was one in practice (didn't know the terms) when I was young. But I can't reconcile "law" with "freedom", no matter how it is "legislated". All laws we agree on are not needed, hence other laws are enforcing some people's will on others, and that is what I finally realized, maybe 15 years ago or so.
There are two aspects to this... one is that laws are vastly over used to negative effect... sure we agree here.
The other is if ALL law is counter to freedom... and the answer is, no, unless you getinto rediculous things like "Making murder illegal infringes on my freedom to murder people"
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
i think lysander spooner put it quite fittingly
>If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice. If it be not a natural principle, all that men have ever said or written about it, from time immemorial, has been said and written about that which had no existence. If it be not a natural principle, all the appeals for justice that have ever been heard, and all the struggles for justice that have ever been witnessed, have been appeals and struggles for a mere fantasy, a vagary of the imagination, and not for a reality.
>
>If justice be not a natural principle, then there is no such thing as injustice; and all the crimes of which the world has been the scene, have been no crimes at all; but only simple events, like the falling of the rain, or the setting of the sun; events of which the victims had no more reason to complain than they had to complain of the running of the streams, or the growth of vegetation.
>
>If justice be not a natural principle, governments (so-called) have no more right or reason to take cognizance of it, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance of it, than they have to take cognizance, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance, of any other nonentity; and all their professions of establishing justice, or of maintaining justice, or of rewarding justice, are simply the mere gibberish of fools, or the frauds of imposters.
>
>But if justice be a natural principle, then it is necessarily an immutable one; and can no more be changed—by any power inferior to that which established it—than can the law of gravitation, the laws of light, the principles of mathematics, or any other natural law or principle whatever; and all attempts or assumptions, on the part of any man or body of men—whether calling themselves governments, or by any other name—to set up their [PAGE 12] own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of justice, as a rule of conduct for any human being, are as much an absurdity, an usurpation, and a tyranny, as would be their attempts to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion in the place of any and all the physical, mental, and moral laws of the universe.
