If you define democracy as the majority of people of a group or nation determining the way their government is run, I propose there is no such thing as a non-democracy. Can you see why?
No, I can’t. Can you explain - perhaps using one or more of the following governments as an example.
Saudi Arabia
Uzbekistan
Libya
Turkmenistan
Myanmar
Togo
Chad
Central African Republic
North Korea
I propose there is no such thing as a democracy. Can you see why?
In many nations, such as the ones listed above by the PC apeman, the form of government is not determined by the majority of the people, or even by a sizeable minority, but by a small cabal, or a dictator, or a despotic monarch, etc. These are not democracies.
I think you are basing this on the assumption that no government can be effective without the people’s consent, express or implied – which is trivial insofar as it is true.
You do have the essence of it. All governments derive their power expressly from the people whom they govern. It cannot be otherwise. If there is a dictatorship in power it is because a majority of the people are ok with giving up that much power to one person. Whatever their motives or the situation of how that dictator came to power, the dictator cannot dictate unless the people allow it.
All governments rule by power of death. Ultimately, that is the only recourse a government has when the governed refuse the government. When a majority will not accept rule, then resorting to that ultimate power is not possible.
You find this a trivial matter, how so?
First of all it is repugnant. It’s a variation on blame the victim. Secondly, it drains all meaning from the term democracy. Why do you find doing so to be advantageous?
Well, I figure if under a particular government, there’s no right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness, then something is seriously wrong.
This is where your logic falls apart. There are plenty of governments (Stalin, Pol Pot) who had no difficulty in killing enough of the population until the remainder became compliant (out of fear.) Murdering enough people until you have a majority who are afraid to oppose you is not what I’d call “determining the way their government is run.”
Your definition is active: “determining the way their government is run.”
Passive refusal to object (when the consequence of objecting is death) is not determining anything but merely accepting might-makes-right.
Because it falsely obscures the difference between popular and tyrannical governments. Democracy is when the state does whatever the people want it to do. Dictatorship is when the state does whatever its ruler wants it to do and the people will tolerate without open revolt; and that’s a very different thing, especially considering how dangerous revolt can be.
Sometimes, the majority are not okay with the governing tyranny, but they are afraid to rise up, because they are afraid of the government. And dictatorships are not afraid to do things like this to make sure the populace remains afraid. It has nothing to do with the majority “being okay” with the dictatorship; it has everything to do with their being frightened and powerless (or at least they perceive that they are powerless).
Why do you find it repugnant? I am not advocating any position or form of government over another. I am merely discussing the basic elements of governance in a way to provoke thought and discussion. What about that is repugnant?
I am merely deconstructing popularly held beliefs concerning governance for the sake of discussion. Where do you see pure democracy anywhere in history? How is this any different than pure communism, besides property rights? I\'d suggest that the term democracy is the result of a somewhat fallacious buildup of societal hope for what the American Republic could (or some would say should) be.
My logic doesn\'t fall apart at all. How is this different than the United States? Say I want to smoke pot. The government says no. I can ignore the government, to what effect? Threat of prosecution. I can ignore the prosecution to what effect? Threat of violence from police. I can resist the power of the police to what effect? Ultimately, death. At some point along the equation I can give in to the government and choose to recognize it\'s power, or I can die. This is true in ALL governments. (I don\'t use any drugs or alcohol - for the record).
Still, you have a majority who tolerate the governance. I don\'t think either one of your examples fits exactly your concept either. No dictator has ever risen to power solely on his own. There is always a group behind him with popular support of some sort. Imagine you or I declaring ourselves King of America. Would it work? Would it work even if we killed thousands? No. Why? Because the people won\'t tolerate it.
I would dispute the majority would feel this way. Look at Iraq. Look at Nazi Germany. Look at Congo. The fearful are there with just cause, but not a majority or the situation could not exist. Look at Cuba. The United States does not recognize Castro\'s regime. Does that stop him from exerting power? Not in the slightest. The people are the ones who give him power, for good or ill.
This is an example of a dictatorship repressing a minority. It cannot happen with a majority. The majority must allow it to happen, or the government will topple.
It’s like saying there’s no such thing as armed robbery, just people who freely choose to give their money to someone who points a gun at them.
It’s nothing like that! That’s stupid!
It’s actually just like saying since a teacup and a battleship are both subject to gravity, they’d serve equally well at a dinner party.
What’s repugnant is the proposition that people suffering under an oppressive regime have only themselves to blame for not overthrowing it. That proposition is inherent in your claim.
For the sake of discussion it is helpful to group governments into types. If all governments are democracies then that’s not a very useful grouping, is it? How would you differentiate the governments of Sweden and North Korea? If “there is no such thing as a non-democracy” then what terms do you suggest we use?
It doesn’t matter. Obviously whatever terms we use will be wrong.
Seriously, anyone who can write this and claim to be sincere:
…has got to be engaged in attempted leg-pulling in the first degree.
Wait, is this guy Mocha or Ice Cream Joe? And both just joined? 
If you have a suspicion that another poster is acting as a sock puppet, please do not make that accusation publicly. That is what the Report This Post button is for–to notify staff away from public accusations.
That said, Mocha and Ice Cream Joe, we only permit one username per poster on this website. If you are, indeed, a single poster employing two usernames, please e-mail TUBADIVA@aol.com to identify which of those names you would prefer be disabled.
[ /Moderating ]
Are you kidding me? Two people are posting in the same thread that are new so someone finds it necessary to accuse us of being the same person?
Darn, thread got derailed. Now I can only hope the OP will return to the original topic so I can ridicule it some more.