2013 July 05 Friday
How Different Societies Invalidate Will Of Majority

Great tweet by Pax Dickinson:

Is revolution morally legitimate? Coup? Depends on where your interests lie.

Some California ballot propositions go unenforced and others get overturned by judges. Just about all those propositions are on issues where the elites are in deep disagreement with the masses.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2013 July 05 07:50 PM 


Comments
WJ said at July 6, 2013 9:12 AM:

Why wouldn't the elites do whatever the hell they want? The masses are sheep, and are happy so long as they have bread, circuses, and the Kardashian sisters. The minute there's no food on the table, or you can't run the AC in the summertime, the elites will be screwed.

The larger a country gets, the less democratic it gets. Democracy is about more than just a right to vote - it assumes a power to unite against the elites if they fail to govern responsibly and fail to protect the rights of citizens.

The massive and diverse immigration this country has received over the last few decades has turned us from a republic into an empire: 70 million new people just from 1987-2012, 40-50 million of them a direct or indirect result of immigration. A country of 330 million is too large to be any sort of functioning democracy. Consider the other largest countries in the world: China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan, Mexico. Besides Japan, not much to take hope from, and unlike us, Japan is quite homogeneous.

As a country gets larger and more diverse, the less possible it is for the people to unite against the elites over any single issue, other than simple starvation. That's why they want us large. That's why they want us diverse. They want to turn us not into Brazil, but China.

Zamman said at July 6, 2013 4:06 PM:

There's no such a thing as "the will of the people" not even "the will of the majority"

Masses are always blind. Masses are never rational. Hell, most humans are still very primitive and that happens when they are ruled by their emotions. We live in an immensely emotional society.

destructure said at July 6, 2013 6:18 PM:

I made similar comments to those tweets on Lion's post about Egypt. I also agree with WJ. Of the blogs I read, he's fast becoming one of the commenters with whom I'm most in agreement.

ErisGuy said at July 9, 2013 6:24 AM:

Curious. I must have missed when monarchy became a legitimate form of government. .

destructure said at July 10, 2013 8:19 PM:

ErisGuy

England was a constitutional monarchy at the time and still is. Other constitutional monarchies include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Which of those governments do you think are illegitimate and should be overthrown?

I'm not arguing against the American Revolution. Americans had a right to self-determination. My point is that monarchy isn't necessarily illegitimate and monarchy alone isn't grounds for rebellion.

Check it out said at July 11, 2013 6:23 PM:

Monarchy IS grounds for rebellion only because this is an era of republics and the monarchy continues to be an insult to democracy and equality from those who feel have the "God-given" right to rule over others.

In a monarchy, the monarch feels that he/she is above human and that he/she should be supported by the people without producing anything in return. Monarchs are parasites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9h2t9uYzAk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ANnmDrtEcI

destructure said at July 11, 2013 8:23 PM:

Check it out

That's your subjective opinion. Nature doesn't share your values and neither do I.

destructure said at July 11, 2013 8:25 PM:

Check it out

That's your subjective opinion. Nature doesn't share your values and neither do I.

Check it out said at July 12, 2013 1:58 PM:

I don't know what you mean by "Nature", but monarchs are parasites and that's an objective fact: a portion of the tax collected from the people's work is used to feed, clothe, shelter and amuse these good-for-nothings. And you should see how these pricks and bitches eat. Some are so whimsical they sometimes belong to an animal rights organization while they go to Africa and shoot elephants just for sport, or have endangered species brought to their tables or gardens.

At least a president or a prime minister does a job. Cute little princes and princesses, queens and kings or dukes and duchesses don't earn their living. They're idle.

The monarchy is the ultimate insult of the bourgeoisie that still lingers from the Middle Ages. Just like the papacy, Iran or any other theocracy. Accepting them, means accepting that some humans have a "divine right" on others. I don't see where your "Nature" fits in here.
Too bad so many American are so fond of monarchies, particularly the British.

I hold republican values -and I'm not meaning the g.o.p.- so I certainly don't share your worshiping lowbrow values, nor will I ever call anybody your/his/her "royal highness", your/his/her "royal magesty" or however those tight-ass idiots want people to call them.

destructure said at July 12, 2013 7:09 PM:

Science can provide objective knowledge. But science can't provide a value judgement. There's no good or bad in Nature. There only IS. Apparently, you've made a value judgement regarding democracy and equality. Your subjective opinion is that you like them. Yeah, well, good for you. Some people like the smell of their own farts, too. Why should I give your subjective opinions on democracy and equality any more credence? Because you imagine yourself enlightened? You're not.

Check it out said at July 17, 2013 12:07 PM:

Oh, now you're being objective, telling me what you interpret I like and what nature is all about. What you do is called mental jerking off. Well, as I said, and here it goes again down your throat, like medicine:

Monarchs are parasites and that's an OBJECTIVE fact, because a portion of the tax collected from the people's work is used to feed, clothe, shelter and amuse these good-for-nothings. The monarchy is a medieval institution, just like the papacy, Iran or any other theocracy. Accepting them, means accepting that some humans have a "divine right" on others.

Besides, I never said there was "good" or "bad" in nature or anything alike, as you deceitfully imply I did. However, I do know that NATURE includes EVOLUTION, so the monarchy alone nowadays, IS grounds for rebellion, as many British are now doing. And why do you think so many British are rebelling? Because it's only natrural, get it? only natural, and by that I mean consecuently obvious. So if the wonderful name and memory of Oliver Cromwell makes you feel raped, that's a different matter for you to deal with privately. But I very much look forward to read your personal interpretation of the word "nature".

My values are Republican, get it?


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright