If 51% democratically voted to enslave the other 49%, that would be a working democracy but far from "liberation of people".
This is why people who give a shit about Democracy talk about minority rights, and free media, and non-discrimination. These are the core tenets of democracy.
51% decide that 49% shouldn’t be allowed to drink alcohol. that’s a comparatively minor example of “tyranny of the majority” (which happened within living memory). now explore all battles you’ve been on the losing side of. abortion access? funding of overseas wars? legality of drugs?
i find it incomprehensible that if you look at things honestly you won’t find at least some instance when you’ve felt repressed by the democratic rule of the majority. “enslavement” is simply that repression exaggerated for the purpose of making you see it.
> This is why people who give a shit about Democracy talk about minority rights, and free media, and non-discrimination. These are the core tenets of democracy.
no, these are the core tenets of egalitarianism. democracy is merely one process by which we may approximate egalitarian ends. if you care about egalitarian ideals (or above, “liberation of the people”), you should be open to other processes which achieve them — not just the one you were raised to know.
Just because sometimes you lose in a democracy doesn't make it tyranny. Quite the reverse. If you can't accept a political system that doesn't always let you get your way, then you're the tyrant.
if “yes”, we have radically different views that probably can’t be reconciled on a HN thread (could talk about them on a different platform — check my bio).
if “no”, then i’m not sure i understand your argument.
for reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Ameri...
But I've never seen a satisfactory answer to the followup question which is what political system do you envision can prevent such bad outcomes? Surely non-democratic societies produce similar bad outcomes more often.
That's why these arguments frequently reduce to one person saying "democracy is illegitimate because sometimes majorities vote for awful things" and the other person replying "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
That's how all democracies work, 51% can't just make any enslavement-law they want. It is still democracy because the constitution that says so was approved democratically.
Democracy is not a single "thing". It is an adjective describing societies. Some have more of it, some less. Not so long ago women couldn't vote, nor blacks. A clear dividing line in current-day politics is that some people seem to think we should have less of it.
earlier in the thread we touched on (literal) slavery, and it was pointed out that it's basically irrelevant to modern, established states. but how much of this is political, v.s. social and economic/technological? to state the obvious, slaves didn't gain legal rights by voting or participating in the political system. but moreover: if you took a democracy today, picked one race within it, excluded them from the political process and let everyone else vote on whether to enslave that race or not, would they do it?
i can't really imagine it. social norms have shifted so much that the politics just play a substantially more minor role here.
now take the WWII internment camps. if this replayed today, how would it be different? we didn't have RVs in the 40's, but today anyone with one could reasonably escape to the hills and live in only mild discomfort for at least a few months. information flows are generally faster, so anyone at risk of being interned would probably have more time to react. on the downside, surveillance means your bank account might be frozen, and your employment -- even if remote -- jeopardized. who really knows exactly what would happen -- more importantly technology plays a huge role in shaping what at first looks to be a strictly political outcome.
to get to the point: social norms and technology are inextricably linked to the same outcomes which political processes seek to control. to ask "what political system ... can prevent such bad outcomes" is incomplete: because that's only one of three large systems which drive these outcomes.
an extremely simplified view of these systems is something like this:
- social norms: the informal ways we relate to and interact with each other.
- political systems: formal process for legitimizing large-scale power relations between individuals and groups. underpinned -- especially in democracies -- by social norms or myths (widespread belief in a founding body of law like a constitution).
- technology: tools which change the specific dependencies between individuals. often they supplement the ways people relate to each other: in the past if i wanted to read a book i had to purchase it through a bookstore; now i have the choice to print it myself at home.
while political systems are about taking powers which are presumed to be necessary and deciding exactly how they should be distributed across the citizenry, technology uniquely offers a path toward diminishing if not altogether escaping those power relations.
> what political system do you envision can prevent such bad outcomes?
none. in both senses of the word. democracy gets us further along than any other political system we've explored by distributing power, and choice. to bring choice where there was none before, at this point, technology is the remaining lever. a generation from today, that person with the RV in the hills can manufacture their supplies on some 3d printer. they can purchase food through Bitcoin over some P2P internet link, maybe pick it up without exposing themselves with a drone. a generation from then, they can just grow food lab-style. utopian, dystopian, it's not a panacea, but it's better than being locked in a camp. it's better to have the choice.
if "liberation" means choice, and increasing choice means decreasing order, then infinite choice would imply anarchy in the political sense. not as a goal but as a side effect of pursuing desirable social outcomes. that's not to say people wouldn't self-organize into groups within this environment, some of which might have hierarchy and even formal decision making systems (even the most unconstrained successful non-profits leverage such systems) -- just that these would always be escapable: the risks would be minimal whenever those structures turn against you.
now that's a very distant, hypothetical future. we need a state to ensure the negative rights that protect choice in the first place: i don't see that changing in my lifetime. my point is just that we're at the point where the fruitful thing to do is gradually decrease the powers we hold over each other via political systems.
so what kind of political system allows itself to shrink over time? over the last century, the borders between democracies have been largely stable, most of the growth has been inward. in the US, i don't think we'd see any internal warring if we got rid of our central federal government. i think the path forward in my lifetime is just toward smaller democracies, connected by trade and treaties. during covid, here on the west coast CA, OR and WA were already coordinating outside of federal processes. distribute the powers held by the federal government back to the states, and from there on to the metro regions. in the political sphere, that seems the easy/low-risk direction to proliferating choice.
i'm arguing politics in a cryptocurrency thread. so to bring it back: now is our opportunity to remove one of the political levers we wield over each other. OP is right that Ethereum isn't democratic. head-to-head it might not be better than a democratic state's currency. but the coexistence of the two insulates against some possibility of "the majority voting for something awful". if the tyrannical majority vote me out of my home during WWIII, at least it's that much harder for them to vote away my ability to buy an RV and retreat to the hills.
That is because it is a business, not a government elected by people. And I'm fine with that. It's not too different from credit card companies. Problem of course is if it becomes a monopoly.
On a completely separate track, what is described above is just an extreme example of what is actually happening. Some proxy of majority voting forced me to finance, in addition to the things I would gladly finance out of necessity like police and roads; or even unnecessary things I'd gladly donate to like NASA or National Parks; such things as e.g. the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, student loan forgiveness, healthcare subsidies, TSA security theater, etc. They did it by taking some part of my earnings, i.e. forcing me to work extra instead of having more free time for the same salary. Then they used the money to bomb a foreign wedding or give some deadbeat a chance at grievance studies. I guess it's good it is only a part-time enslavement.
Im not just trying to “win an argument”, like you accuse me of, I’m pointing out an inaccuracy of your statement. Through your childish outburst I can see that you’re defining democracy to include other aspects of what you deem to be “good governance” — fine, but that’s confusing given the well known definition which doesn’t necessarily include those things.
But what's usually left out when people bring out that argument, is that the alternative is worse. If the 51% can enslave the 49% in a democracy, then the 1% can enslave the 99% in a system where people vote with their money. In both versions, you need to protect groups with less power, but democracies distribute power much, much better than "capitalocracies" where 1 dollar = 1 vote.
And then the 51% of the other country would perhaps try to enslave the original 49%. But that would not be democratic any more. That would be juts one country starting a war against another.
Weak governments make for failed states, because corporations and other interest groups such as gangs, warlords, control things instead.
Or, if you and nobody in your family is of 'military age', they 'compete' for it, by rolling into your town, and stealing half of what you own. The 'competing' warlord that rolls in next week will, of course, steal the other half. If you're lucky, they won't make an example out of your town for 'supporting' the first warlord.
I'll take a strong, stable government over that horror-show any day of the week, but if you'd like to give it a try, much of Mexico has quite a bit of that sort of thing going on right now. Anyone who moves to the right parts of it can enjoy life amid 'competing' cartels.
All in all it was definitely a more freeing environment than a lot of life in the US.
------------
>Why do you live in the US, then? That should make you think a bit harder about failed states.
If the government wants to leave the territory I'm in, I'm all good with that. I've never demanded the government stay here.
Why do you live in the US, then? That should make you think a bit harder about failed states.
Why does anyone live somewhere under a government they're not happy with? Why do women live in states with abortion laws they disagree with, is it because they're edgy teens? Why don't you personally live somewhere else that is closer to your goals of governance, surely US is not the most ideal for what you seek?
I don't really think you want to go down the road that presumes someone isn't thinking hard enough if they don't run away from where they're currently living. Personally when I did leave the US I did it to help the Kurds, not to abandon my own family, and without the permission of the mother of my child to expatriate it isn't exactly proof I'm not thinking 'harder' because I live here right now. Regardless of how fucked up the US government is I have certain obligations to my family who happen to be here more for logistical reasons than political reasons.
If it were just about me, or if I had permission from the mother to expatriate our child, sure I'd likely not be where I am right now.
This ad-hominem attack on another person's beliefs is non-productive at its very core & doesn't help in the examination & introspection of ideas.
The difference between business and governments is that in business every dollar has a vote, whereas in a democracy every adult has a vote.
"liberation of people" can only happen by having a working democracy. And a working democracy can only exist when there is (democratically elected) government. So it's not like people should be liberated from government, people should be the government.
Therefore I think the best situation is where government controls the money, and we the people control the government.