Tyranny of the majority - I wish we had it

[Pod]

Representative democracy is said to be tyranny of the majority, but I don`t think it actually is so. In reality in a representative democracy (such as all western states are) it is stil a small oligarchy that rules. A combination of elected party politicians, top buerocrats, politically connected buisinnes owners and ideological interest groups.

Imagine instead a system of direct democracy. Lets say that there would be no legislative bodies. Lets say the legislature would not be a congress a senate or a parliament but the electorate as the whole. Lets say every six months there would a referendum on which you would get to cast a vote on a half a dozen proposals.

Does anyody think we would in such a system be worse off than today? I think that on balance it would be much better. Can anbody imagine the bailout bill passing on a referendum? Absolutely not. Can anybody imagine harsher gun control passing on a referendum? Can anybody imagine an income tax increase passing on a referendum? Absolutely not.

Of course it would be far from ideal and I can imagine in some aspects it could be worse than today. Also I am by no means saying it would be a legitimate system. I am opposed to mayority rule on philosiphical grouns. But as an alternative to the existing situation I would welcome it.

So I think folks are being excessively harsh when they disparge "the masses" or the "sheeple" and complain they are what is standing between them and their liberty. I think that would be the case if we had actuall tyranny of the majority, but we don`t. I wish that is what we had though. I think the mayority would be less tyrannical than the minority is.

[CUnknown]

Tyranny of the majority would be a lot better than tyranny by the banksters, big government, and Wall Street! I totally agree. But a Constitutional government would be better. Tyranny by the minority is the worst and most common form of tyranny.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

California. Proposition 8.

[Brian4Liberty]

No need to wonder about it. We already have it partially in California. It's the Proposition system. Sometimes it works out ok, sometimes it doesn't. In recent years the people of California voted for the massive borrowing that has it in the position is it in today. The public was just as fiscally irresponsible as our politicians.

The other big drawback is the deception that is rampant. The people don't read the details. Heck, most people vote without a clue (probably like most politicians). If there is a Proposition titled "Save the Whales", in the details it would probably call for hunting them to extinction.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

No need to wonder about it. We already have it partially in California. It's the Proposition system. Sometimes it works out ok, sometimes it doesn't. In recent years the people of California voted for the massive borrowing that has it in the position is it in today. The public was just as fiscally irresponsible as our politicians.

The other big drawback is the deception that is rampant. The people don't read the details. Heck, most people vote without a clue (probably like most politicians). If there is a Proposition titled "Save the Whales", in the details it would probably call for hunting them to extinction.

save them on your wall

[LibertyEagle]

Representative democracy is said to be tyranny of the majority, but I don`t think it actually is so. In reality in a representative democracy (such as all western states are) it is stil a small oligarchy that rules. A combination of elected party politicians, top buerocrats, politically connected buisinnes owners and ideological interest groups.

Imagine instead a system of direct democracy. Lets say that there would be no legislative bodies. Lets say the legislature would not be a congress a senate or a parliament but the electorate as the whole. Lets say every six months there would a referendum on which you would get to cast a vote on a half a dozen proposals.

Does anyody think we would in such a system be worse off than today? I think that on balance it would be much better. Can anbody imagine the bailout bill passing on a referendum? Absolutely not.
Absolutely yes. From all those who are told that they will benefit from such a bailout.


Can anybody imagine harsher gun control passing on a referendum?
Yes. From those who do not have, or those who do not understand why it is important that the people are armed.


Can anybody imagine an income tax increase passing on a referendum? Absolutely not.
Absolutely yes. Those who are not the ones being taxed, often times could care less if their neighbor is taxed. And if they think they might get the benefit of their neighbor's money, then hell yes, they're all for it.


Of course it would be far from ideal and I can imagine in some aspects it could be worse than today. Also I am by no means saying it would be a legitimate system. I am opposed to mayority rule on philosiphical grouns. But as an alternative to the existing situation I would welcome it.

So I think folks are being excessively harsh when they disparge "the masses" or the "sheeple" and complain they are what is standing between them and their liberty. I think that would be the case if we had actuall tyranny of the majority, but we don`t. I wish that is what we had though. I think the mayority would be less tyrannical than the minority is.

Both are bad.