All governments are inherently democratic -

[mr.moon1488]

Any persons' authority over anything is purely determined by how many people decide to acknowledge it. North Korea is likely the most totalitarian government in modern times, but if even 51% of the population were to respond to one of Kim Jong Un's commands with "lol nah bro," his government would cease to exist. Thus the actual authority lies in the ones' whom are obedient, and actually carrying out his commands.

As much as people like to think of themselves as independent, most people are in reality their own oppressors.

 

[Richardo Retardo]

This sounds like the kind of oversimplification a 14 year old would think up after watching too much "political" YouTube.

 

[eldri]

There's a great scene from the new HBO show Chernobyl (it's a great show despite the producer/writer suffering from TDS) where, when the disaster occurred, a committee decided to mislead the locals about the severity of the situation and prevent the spread of "misinformation" by cutting the phone lines.

The people had no say in this. So is it the people's fault?

 

[mr.moon1488]

This sounds like the kind of oversimplification a 14 year old would think up after watching too much "political" YouTube.

That "rebuttal" is basically a joke. Most things are simple, and simple minded people make things complicated. (Occam's razor anyone?)

There's a great scene from the new HBO show Chernobyl (it's a great show despite the producer/writer suffering from TDS) where, when the disaster occurred, a committee decided to mislead the locals about the severity of the situation and prevent the spread of "misinformation" by cutting the phone lines.

The people had no say in this. So is it the people's fault?

So who made up the committee?

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

You're right in that all governments are capable of being ripped apart by a ravening mob. Otherwise, I tend to think of democratic government as a mirage.

 

[Richardo Retardo]

Most things are simple

No they aren't. For example, you completely disregard the role that things like cultural norms, material and geographical factors, or historical goals play in the formation and running of a society. Your point is just you snickering in a juvenile manner as you say "Well, if 51% of the population really wanted something to happen they'd just rebel and make it happen. I solved politics, dude. People are just too dumb to have thought of my master plan."
What you said was really dumb and it's obvious that you haven't given it an once of thought.

EDIT: Also you don't understand what the word democratic means.

 

[mr.moon1488]

You're right in that all governments are capable of being ripped apart by a ravening mob. Otherwise, I tend to think of democratic government as a mirage.

Well, they're all ultimately ruled by a ravening mob. Through whatever process, the population does establish the government, empower either a group of people, or an individual to run that government, and then they enforce the will of that person, or group.

Meaning, people are mostly responsible for the governments they have.

 

[eldri]

So who made up the committee?

The government most likely.
But the point is is that if the people are unaware of what the individuals in power are doing to keep the people down, is it truly democratic?

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

Well, they're all ultimately ruled by a ravening mob. Through whatever process, the population does establish the government, empower either a group of people, or an individual to run that government, and then they enforce the will of that person, or group.

Meaning, people are mostly responsible for the governments they have.

I disagree. Good governance is the antithesis of the mob, and governments usually aren't directly established by all members of the population: most people are too busy doing other things to be sitting around signing constitutions, establishing hierarchies, etc. Of course, I'm hard-pressed to think of a country or empire that didn't eventually collapse under the weight of a mob (and other issues of course, but the mob is always present), disregarding the ones who got conquered.

Mobs have very short-term, selfish interests driven by passions and they are more or less opposed to any sort of logic or reflection. These are not ingredients of a government.

 

[mr.moon1488]

No they aren't. For example, you completely disregard the role that things like cultural norms, material and geographical factors, or historical goals play in the formation and running of a society. Your point is just you snickering in a juvenile manner as you say "Well, if 51% of the population really wanted something to happen they'd just rebel and make it happen. I solved politics, dude. People are just too dumb to have thought of my master plan."
What you said was really dumb and it's obvious that you haven't given it an once of thought.

"cultural norms,"
Something established by popular consent...
"material and geographical factors"
Something you'll not give an example of, and how it has a direct effect on the topic at hand...
"I solved politics, dude."
Never once said that...
"What you said was really dumb and it's obvious that you haven't given it an once of thought."
LOL U STUPID BRO

Just stop. You're a complete neophyte at anything related to intellectual discourse, so you resort to trying to twist a conversation around to changing the position into something absurd. I'm pointing out the fact that pretty much every ruling body, rules because there is at least some degree of consent from the general populous. Something so incredibly obvious, that only a complete idiot would deny.

The debate is about this self apparent fact, and how it affects politics. For instance, there is a reason why "regime change" efforts have been massive failures in almost every case.

 

[MediocreMilt]

Nice revenge ratings. Have fun and stay safe!

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

You're a complete neophyte at anything related to intellectual discourse

But..

EDIT: Also you don't understand what the word democratic means.

He's got you there, Cap.
Edit: pasted the quotes in backwards the first time.

 

[mr.moon1488]

no, his government would begin executing and imprisoning people until the remaining ones drop their "lol nah bro" act and get back in line.

Well, who's doing the executions? Other people whom are being forced by other people right?

 

[eldri]

@mr.moon1488, do you believe free-will is absolute?

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

I'm pointing out the fact that pretty much every ruling body, rules because there is at least some degree of consent from the general populous. Something so incredibly obvious, that only a complete idiot would deny.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody reasonable who'd deny that. The issue here is whether or not THAT constitutes democracy, and whether or not the fact that the government rules with consent of the governed somehow transmogrifies it's construction into what you're calling democracy, which would essentially destroy all distinctions between government systems and turn this into a game of: "WELL IF I DEFINE IT THIS WAY THEN I'M RIGHT."

That's true. If we all get to just redefine terms then we can all win. But we can't talk to each other.

Edit: Clarity.

 

[mr.moon1488]

@mr.moon1488, do you believe free-will is absolute?

I don't think there is an absolute answer to that. I've said in previous threads, that one could argue it doesn't exist, since there will always be consequences for you actions. (these consequences determining your behavior) For instance "I now throw off the tyranny of being required to eat," and then I die as a consequence. When in the context of the topic at hand, ultimately people are picking between supporting the system, or rejecting the system, and then ultimately have to accept the consequences of whatever option they pick.

If you're an outsider looking in, you have to be aware of the fact that the general population has by a majority picked one option over the other.

Hence, every system is inherently democratic to at least some degree.

Edit:
(these consequences determining your behavior)

 

[Lemmingwise]

North Korea is likely the most totalitarian government in modern times, but if even 51% of the population were to respond to one of Kim Jong Un's commands with "lol nah bro," his government would cease to exist.

This would only be true if power (let's oversimplify it to purely military power) is evenly distributed among the population, but it's not. It's fully possible for a small group with tanks to lord power over a large group.

If 51% of north korea went "lol nah bro", the 0.5% of the leaders of that movement would get killed as well as their families for not reporting them sooner. And then the rest would fall in line again. Perhaps a few would be made examples of and publicly tortured for terrorism.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Nice revenge ratings. Have fun and stay safe!
View attachment 778992

 

[mr.moon1488]

This would only be true if power (let's oversimplify it to purely military power) is evenly distributed among the population, but it's not. It's fully possible for a small group with tanks to lord power over a large group.

If 51% of north korea went "lol nah bro", the 0.5% of the leaders of that movement would get killed as well as their families for not reporting them sooner. And then the rest would fall in line again. Perhaps a few would be made examples of and publicly tortured for terrorism.

This is true, but ultimately, someone had to build those tanks, someone had to feed the people inside of those tanks, someone had to raise the soldiers inside of those tanks, and someone had to empower a system to support those tanks to begin with. Not only that, but the persons operating those tanks, had to agree to carry out the will of the person ordering them.

It all eventually leads back to the fact that the population is responsible for the society they live in.

 

[Lemmingwise]

This is true, but ultimately, someone had to build those tanks, someone had to feed the people inside of those tanks, someone had to raise the soldiers inside of those tanks, and someone had to empower a system to support those tanks to begin with. Not only that, but the persons operating those tanks, had to agree to carry out the will of the person ordering them.

It all eventually leads back to the fact that the population is responsible for the society they live in.

You're missing the point though, which is that to maintain power you don't need 51% of the population, but 51% of the projectable force, which may well be in the hands of 5% of the people. Your idea sounds nice on paper and is the first observation made when you start to think about things like the social contract, but you haven't really thought through the implications yet.

Why do you think regime's generally treat their military very well? They're part of the power structure. They're on the benefitting end of the regime. When there are famine's, they won't be the ones starving and that is worth it to keep operating those tanks.

The idea that you need 51% support of the population is only true in democratic systems with universal suffrage and even there it doesn't really go up in practice, only in theory.