🇳🇱
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"
Murder can never be morally acceptable, since it is violence. Burglary is violence, theft is violence. Threat to hurt you unless you comply, is violence. And the above is with one large caveat; "unless it is defending against violence".
Why is that so hard to get?
From my PoV, you can set up your commune with laws and rulers, and people can agree to obeying with threat of caging and death if they don't... as long as I and others are not required to live there.
> Murder can never be morally acceptable, since it is violence. Burglary is violence, theft is violence. Threat to hurt you unless you comply, is violence. And the above is with one large caveat; "unless it is defending against violence".
>
> Why is that so hard to get?
It isnt hard to understand, it also isnt what I asked or said.
> From my PoV, you can set up your commune with laws and rulers, and people can agree to obeying with threat of caging and death if they don't... as long as I and others are not required to live there.
Oh so you are actually all for governments that use for an coercion. So long as you can leave.
Ok so how is it inforced that they let you? I mean they decide according to their rules you arent allowed to leave cause they dont like your face and instead you will be tortured for life... Since you said the rule here should be that you are allowed to leave, so when that rule is broken, who, in your system comes in and forces that commune to let you go?
