You keep throwing these words - tyranny, despot, dictatorship - into contexts where they don’t make sense. “Despotic majority,” especially in a democracy, is pretty much a contradiction in terms.
The founders of this country were quite aware of the potential for what they called “the tyranny of the majority,” and created safeguards in our system of government to attempt to avoid it. You could even say there are undemocratic elements in the system which exist to protect minorities.
I think you’re equating the existence of an oppressed minority with the existence of a dictatorship. I think that, as history shows, that given the degree of oppression and the size of the minority, a “society” can be changed. Sometimes by violent means. The U.S. Constitution allows great change to happen without violence and bloodshed.
Now, that fact might not give solace to the oppressed group of the time, but we’re trying. You might say that a dictator could change things and bring power and wealth to the minority overnight, and he can. But he can also, as his whim steers him, have them all killed, as well.
There is no perfect system. I’d say that ours is pretty good, even the best yet. Can it stand to be improved. Yep. In fact, there is a very recent thread about that: “How would you change the constitution”, or something to that effect.
Sometimes I wonder, how Aldebaran is passing the time?
The words ‘democracy’ and ‘dictatorship’ refer to how a leader came to be in power or how they remain in power. The US is ruled by elected representatives. This is different to a dictatorship where a citizen has no say in who they are ruled by. To equate these two renders both words useless.
What would you call a situation where the government does secure the rights of its citizens, but the citizens have no choice about who is in power?
A dictatorship is the rule of a dictator. Dictators are individual humans. Law is not a human, and likewise cannot be an individual.
This is a country that follows “rule by law”, you’re just trying to switch out “rule” with “force” so as employ a pejorative. And if indeed if you want to employ words with negative overtones, that is perfectly fine but ignoring the definitions of those words so that you can use the pejorative with the most pleasing sound is just silly.
No, which means I could be showing a certain blindness to reality or you’re just doing a piss-poor job of explaining your position. I tend toward the latter.
Can you name any nation, current or historical, that wasn’t a dictatorship, i.e. not a dictatorship of the majority, the minority, of law, of double-coupon Wednesday, or anything else?
Looking at the OP, I think he’s had a love child with Liberal.
Maybe instead of creating your own definitions for words, you could give some specific examples of how the US is a dictatorship?
Everyone stop for a second.
This is the profound question of theory of government. And it’s a question that often goes unasked here.
Any system of government cannot be all things to all people. It’s impossible. But the nature of man is such that without society influence, in the form of laws, the strong will take advantage of the weak. Therefore any government will have some aspect of coercion inherent in it. Even if it’s just the coercion to prevent killers from killing it exists.
And the existence of that balance point of ‘where is enough enough’ is one answered a thousand ways by a thousand groups. Some are content with more and some with less. A flexible system that allows this to change over time is, in my opinion, the best that can be hoped for.
I welcome other comments.
Irony.
It seems to me that rwjefferson is in fact arguing in favor of dictatorship (as everyone but rwjefferson understands the term); rather than have a system in which elected officials create laws which are then interpreted by judges and enforced by an elected executive, we should have a system in which some judge or group of judges determines the law on a case-by-case basis with no apparent checks or balances. I guess we just hope that this judge is infallible.
How is that less dictatorial, again?
rwjefferson: Who, exactly, taught you these things about what a dictatorship is, and what justice is, and so forth?
He is probably doing what most people do who have left the boards after failing to follow the rules–rules such as not making or implying accusations that other posters are sockpuppets.
When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, for I was not a Jew.
When they came for the Catholics, I said nothing, for I was not a Catholic.
When they came for the gypsies, I said nothing, for I was not a gypsie.
But when they tried to make me wear those stupid shoes, I cried out for freedom!
Regards,
Shodan
I can’t figure out whether you’re a totalitarian or an anarchist, nor exactly what ideas you are attempting to communicate.
The short answer is, I accept that power (which you seem to wrongly read as tyrrany) which prevents a greater power from controlling me. The aim of the Constitution was not to break all power (which is impossible) but to rule with a minimum of power, with the intent of preventing a greater and more coercive power from taking over.
Two quarts, no more.
I find it difficult to know what this guy is arguing for or against. His personal definitions of well-known words only lead to confusion and misunderstanding. I am unsure of what he means by “Liberty” (note capitalisation of the word). My liberty is curtailed every day, just as I curtail the liberty of others. I cannot park my car where I like because you have parked yours where I wanted to. Or I have parked mine where you wanted to park.
Or does liberty mean not locking people up? Well all governments lock people up. In the US they are usually called criminals, but I admit YMMV on that one. Does he mean the US should not lock criminals up then? If so, what do you do with people that violate other people’s right’s? Give them a stern talking to?
The trouble with defining words to fit you own personal agenda is no one knows what you are trying to say. The other side of the coin is, if you can do it then I can do it too. I declare rwjefferson a tyrant for trying to impose his definition of tyrant/dictator on the rest of us in defiance of how most of us feel the word is defined.
I also call him a dictator for being unclear about whar he is arguing and expecting the rest of us to work it out.
I so call ‘dictator’ on you!
Bully.
Let that be a lesson to me.