๐ณ๐ฑ
We have this misconception that #Democracy is executing the will of the majority... But thats not true.
Any democracy that gives 51% of people what they want, even when that is abusive to the wishes of the 49% will not survive, that leads to revolution... democracy has never been about majority rule.
What democracy is about is rule by the people, ALL the people. Any successful system will reach agreements that nearly everyone will be happy enough with so as not to pick up a gun and shoot the other side for oppressing them. Its about compromising enough that everyone can settle rather than agree.
This is exactly why the electorial college and other elements of government exist rather than a simple 51% rule... because we want to make sure any idea has atleast some level of support from most represented groups... so in the end the ones who may not like the vote can at least live with it.
@freemo fun fact: in ancient Greece, democracy was all about the "power" (i.e. 'crazia') to the citzens (i.e. 'demos'), through a majority vote during an assembly, after a free discussion. There were no clear concepts of individual rights and respect of the minority, like in modern democracies. There were no supreme constitutional rights: if the majority vote decides something, this will be effective.
The assembly was used for direct government, and also for judging people in trials. For example Socrate was condemned from a jury of 500 or more citizens. They did not applied codified laws, but they decided that what he was doing was a danger for the values of the community, because the majority of the assembly decided so.
@freemo in other words, in Greece, democracy was like a Tirrany, but instead of giving all the power to a single man, or to a restrict number of people (oligarchia), they gave all the power to the vote of the majority.
Other fun fact: in many places, the king was not considered a tyrant, but a man that had to "serve" his people and partially subject to law and obliged to be fair. They considered "democracy" too much inefficient, and they trusted more a restricted number of people for taking decisions, protecting the kingdom, and maintaining order.
Often we see history like a fable, but there are many subtle variations.
> in other words, in Greece, democracy was like a Tirrany, but instead of giving all the power to a single man, or to a restrict number of people (oligarchia), they gave all the power to the vote of the majority.
Yup we call that a tryanny of the majority.
When the people who run a system are corrupt then no rules, no matter how perfect they may be will ever serve justice.
Rules only work when the system enforces them fairly for everyone.
Barnes put it as the best thing about the legal system is most people never interact with it. It's little more than a meat grinder if you do.
I guess that works both ways... people wont follow the rules either unless they are threatened to be killed if they dont.
@icedquinn
also in antique Greece, they noted that often the majority vote was not representing the free thinking of the assembly, but it was heavily influenced from the oratory art of the best speaker. In a similar way, now days, information is heavily controlled and manipulated. Worse: we have no permanent assemblies, but we vote only every few years.
We should have a better organized democracy, and informative system, using more the technology we have. But there is no will to do this.
And as you noted, if the institution that had to apply a process, are not fair, then a citizen can be "legally" oppressed.
@blob.cat @freemo
@mzan I think you accidentally broke @icedquinn tag with that reply.
> I think you accidentally broke @icedquinn tag with that reply.
sorry. If the qoto assembly will decide so, I will eat the hemlock. Except, qoto is a tiranny, then I will follow @freemo decision ๐
We dont do hemlock here.. We have "The holy cannabis edible"... you take one bite of it and then we laugh at you as the madness ensues :)
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
@antares
Theoretically, we can improve current democratic process, laws, etc... instead of making a revolution. For example, a separation between speculative/financial banks and economic/commercial banks will reduce a lot the power of finance.
In practice, we live inside a soft-power oligarchy, so also if it seems feasible, there will be always something preventing these type of changes.
(there are a few simple interest devices that might be tenable, though this is playing with fire.)
@mzan
I am aware.. it was a simpler model and I think the evolution was larger a good one... the idea had to start somewhere.