Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ECrownofFire]

You vote for people because they stand for things you agree with. If they then violate your trust by failing to act in accordance to their stated program, you vote them out next elections. If you vote for them again despite their failures, you only have yourself to blame.

And I don't see how tyranny of majority causes conflict. The goals of majority are the goals of the people, even if they're bad.

The majority doesn't like your religion. You can't practice it. The majority doesn't like your lack of religion. You're forced to practice one The majority doesn't like you publishing pro-communist articles in a newspaper. Your newspaper is shut down. The majority doesn't like your sexuality. You are discriminated against. The majority doesn't like your race. You're made a slave. There are tons of these examples. The majority is not the people. The people includes EVERY person. What's best for the majority is not always what's best for the people.

But maybe we're just defining "the people" as different things.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

the main problem of democracy is sturgeons law

[malimbar04]

You vote for people because they stand for things you agree with. If they then violate your trust by failing to act in accordance to their stated program, you vote them out next elections. If you vote for them again despite their failures, you only have yourself to blame.

And I don't see how tyranny of majority causes conflict. The goals of majority are the goals of the people, even if they're bad.

This hasn't happened on the majority level in the united states in over 100 years according to the party representation. It is even taught in schools that we have a 2-party system rather than the as-many-parties-as-you-want system that was originally set up. Instead of voting for the best candidate, people vote for the candidate of the main two that they are more willing to put up with. "The Lesser of Two Evils" is rarely more true.

That, and goals of the majority are not the gaols of "the people". I could use the many relavent examples already listed, but I'll go for an extreme theoretical version instead. Imagine a world of green people and blue people, who hate each other. In a pure democracy, with 51% blue people, they could theoretically order a genocide of everyone else. It may start a revolution (if green people care about survival at all), but it is entirely legal. If you scale down this example to below civil-war points, then we get things that basically ruin life for the minority. In a world of 30% atheists, we could have state-sponsored religion. In a world of 10% hispanics, they could require a background check on all hispanics "for the sake of controlling illegal immigration". I hope we can let that position rest now?

[Nikov]

You know, if a country was that divided and hateful to begin with, I don't think a civil war would be avoidable under any system of government. Your illustration has as much relevance as demonstrating steel burns at 1380 degrees C, and so claiming it should never be used in the construction of coffee makers. You're also assuming a lot of behaviors. Of course, I've seen a majority attempt to ruin the life of a minority. That minority being the vilified "rich" and the majority being the "poor" and "middle-class".

[Phmcw]

That minority being the vilified "rich" and the majority being the "poor" and "middle-class".

I was under the impression that i was the rich that did pretty much nothing but gaining money by exploiting the poors
No if wanting one's own share is persecuting...

And guess what, I live in a VERY divided country, with resentment of the two half of the country for each other, while in he course of separation. We still have to seen any act of violence, let alone a civil war, all thanks to our laws that don't allow such a tyranny to arise.

[ECrownofFire]

You know, if a country was that divided and hateful to begin with, I don't think a civil war would be avoidable under any system of government. Your illustration has as much relevance as demonstrating steel burns at 1380 degrees C, and so claiming it should never be used in the construction of coffee makers. You're also assuming a lot of behaviors. Of course, I've seen a majority attempt to ruin the life of a minority. That minority being the vilified "rich" and the majority being the "poor" and "middle-class".

Hey, Nikov, do you mind taking that Political Compass test? I want to see where you are

And agreed on that last bit. Rich become richer, poor become poorer, etc.

[malimbar04]

You know, if a country was that divided and hateful to begin with, I don't think a civil war would be avoidable under any system of government. Your illustration has as much relevance as demonstrating steel burns at 1380 degrees C, and so claiming it should never be used in the construction of coffee makers. You're also assuming a lot of behaviors. Of course, I've seen a majority attempt to ruin the life of a minority. That minority being the vilified "rich" and the majority being the "poor" and "middle-class".

Hence why I said it was a theoretical example taken to the extreme. It fits just as well with your statement of the poor raising taxes on the rich, but that example is already cliche (just like the currently popular health care debate).

I agree with the idea that taxing the rich extra is not fair to them. That is justified on a completely different level, primarily that they can bear the weight and that their taxes provide a LOT more revenue than taxing lower levels. If oen person makes 20,000,000 dollars a year, and they're taxed at 10%, that's a revenue of 2,000,000 per year. One person would then equal the equivalent of  over 600 people making around 30,000 a year and taxed at the same rate.

[Zrk2]

But the whole point is that it is not fair. That is why people argue against higher taxes for the rich. OR even for tax brackets between $50 000 and $100 000, because some gains are completely wiped out by the increase in taxes, like that health care premium linked to a while back.

[Phmcw]

There is also this simple fact : money is not proportional to merits, and most of the art of making money come from subtly snatching it out of somebody else pocket.

[malimbar04]

There is also this simple fact : money is not proportional to merits, and most of the art of making money come from subtly snatching it out of somebody else pocket.

Depends on what you call a merit. To some, being rich is itself a merit. To others, working in a highly valued field is a merit. To yet others, being able to run a successful business in a merit. I'd think that it would be true that being financially wealthy is not correlated in any way with honesty, courtasy, loyalty, friendliness, intelligence, or wisdom, but that's not the point.

And by the way, most of the art of making money has little to do with any sort of theft. The richest people do not rip people off, but rather persuade them to buy from them with some profit margin. Walmart is really freaken rich because they offer cheaper prices. Meijer competes with them so well (in and around Michigan) because they offer similar prices but higher quality and better service. The local grocery store around here can't compete with the prices or service, so fewer people shop there, so it goes out of business.

Ripping people off only works if you can hide in some way. This can be as a monopoly, oligopoly, cartel, fraudulent CEO, or unregulated marketing. If they are sufficiently knowledgable, and there are other choices, consumers and workers can always theoretically change jobs and buy from a different company.

Of course, people are not always that knowledgable (rule 1: people are stupid), and there are not always other choices. That's when regulations come into play. Regulations then become bureaucratic and complicated, and people become dissatisfied and untrusting of them. Because of Rule 1, and because of bureaucracy, it becomes very hard to remove these regulations if they ever become stupid or unwieldy.

By the way, I still haven't seen an alternative way to regulate government. How do we set this up so it can easily remove a regulation we don't like?

[Dwarf]

You know, if a country was that divided and hateful to begin with, I don't think a civil war would be avoidable under any system of government. Your illustration has as much relevance as demonstrating steel burns at 1380 degrees C, and so claiming it should never be used in the construction of coffee makers. You're also assuming a lot of behaviors. Of course, I've seen a majority attempt to ruin the life of a minority. That minority being the vilified "rich" and the majority being the "poor" and "middle-class".

Hey, Nikov, do you mind taking that Political Compass test? I want to see where you are

And agreed on that last bit. Rich become richer, poor become poorer, etc.

I love that test.

Spoiler: Here's mine. (click to show/hide)

[Dwarf]

You know, if a country was that divided and hateful to begin with, I don't think a civil war would be avoidable under any system of government. Your illustration has as much relevance as demonstrating steel burns at 1380 degrees C, and so claiming it should never be used in the construction of coffee makers. You're also assuming a lot of behaviors. Of course, I've seen a majority attempt to ruin the life of a minority. That minority being the vilified "rich" and the majority being the "poor" and "middle-class".

Hey, Nikov, do you mind taking that Political Compass test? I want to see where you are

And agreed on that last bit. Rich become richer, poor become poorer, etc.

I love that test.

Spoiler: Here's mine. (click to show/hide)

Ancom ftw.

[Little]

Anarcho-syndicalism FTW

[Phmcw]

Depends on what you call a merit. To some, being rich is itself a merit. To others, working in a highly valued field is a merit. To yet others, being able to run a successful business in a merit. I'd think that it would be true that being financially wealthy is not correlated in any way with honesty, courtasy, loyalty, friendliness, intelligence, or wisdom, but that's not the point.

That's false and assuming that I'm awfully stupid : why should money be associated with honesty, or any of those supposed qualities?

Money is supposed to be a measure of the worth of your work, and a few other factor such as how wisely it is used.
When you watch to who got the most riches you have : greedy businessman using all dirty tricks in the book, rich heirs, corrupt politician, and a few celebrity. Not exactly the most useful worker (those are usually the middle class.)

[malimbar04]

Depends on what you call a merit. To some, being rich is itself a merit. To others, working in a highly valued field is a merit. To yet others, being able to run a successful business in a merit. I'd think that it would be true that being financially wealthy is not correlated in any way with honesty, courtasy, loyalty, friendliness, intelligence, or wisdom, but that's not the point.

That's false and assuming that I'm awfully stupid : why should money be associated with honesty, or any of those supposed qualities?

Money is supposed to be a measure of the worth of your work, and a few other factor such as how wisely it is used.
When you watch to who got the most riches you have : greedy businessman using all dirty tricks in the book, rich heirs, corrupt politician, and a few celebrity. Not exactly the most useful worker (those are usually the middle class.)

I'm not assuming anything other than what you said first of all. The rest was examples to support my point.

Now do you have a source that says businessmen the sort to fit your description: "all the dirty tricks in the book, rich heirs, corrupt politicians, and a few celebrity"? As I read, something like 90% of all businessmen are first generation, almost none are politicians, relatively few are celebrities, and I haven't found anything that says they use any sort of tricks more dirty than the general population. I've known several people who lie and cheat their taxes, steal bubble gum, and carry illegal knives, none of whom are by any means rich.