Does Democracy Not Always Exist?

[Justice and Mercy]

It's a simple question. Does democracy not always exist?

I mean, the will of a majority of a population is a VERY powerful influence on the course of nations, and will the leaders not constantly try to keep the majority happy?

There are times in history where the majority were ignored, but those were times when the majority was also apathetic.

If the majority truly cared about an issue, they would fight for it.

I don't really consider it a rule of human society, but it holds pretty well.

[Maverick]

It's a simple question. Does democracy not always exist?

I mean, the will of a majority of a population is a VERY powerful influence on the course of nations, and will the leaders not constantly try to keep the majority happy?

What's the approval rating of the war?

In a "democracy" the will of the aristocratic/corporate oligarchs are the most powerful influence in the nation.

Also, if Hilary Clinton is elected to office we will be under a Clinton-Bush regime for 23 years, from 1989-2012.

Leaders try to keep the majority content, or not unhappy enough to grumble or cause problems. People aren't exactly "happy" with our current president but are also not unhappy enough to do something about it.

There are times in history where the majority were ignored, but those were times when the majority was also apathetic.

If the majority truly cared about an issue, they would fight for it.

I can't imagine human nature has or ever will change. No majority or minority of people are apathetic when it comes to their own self-interest; there are people fighting to make paedophilia legal, something which abhors almost everyone and is almost certainly wrong and against the best interests of society but that's never going to stop self-interested paedophiles. If that holds true, I can't imagine there was ever a majority apathetic to causes like equal rights which are as noble and popular as paedophilia is degenerate and underground--they just took time to develop and catch on.

People have had to fight for their rights every step of the way, like the plebs who fought for the Twelve Tables in the time of Cincinnatus. If you know of any benevolent governments that just give people what they are entitled to --let me know.

Anyways, there's not a heck of a lot that people will fight for and as long as they have food in their stomachs and money in their wallets you are going to have a tough job inciting a popular rebellion.

[Justice and Mercy]

What's the approval rating of the war?

Very little. But if the people strongly believe it should end now, they CAN end it now.

A unified population is very powerful.

In a "democracy" the will of the aristocratic/corporate oligarchs are the most powerful influence in the nation.

I disagree. I think a unified mob is much more powerful than a unified oligarchy.

Also, if Hilary Clinton is elected to office we will be under a Clinton-Bush regime for 23 years, from 1989-2012.

That... doesn't mean anything. It's still an election.

Leaders try to keep the majority content, or not unhappy enough to grumble or cause problems. People aren't exactly "happy" with our current president but are also not unhappy enough to do something about it.

Precisely.

I can't imagine human nature has or ever will change. No majority or minority of people are apathetic when it comes to their own self-interest; there are people fighting to make paedophilia legal, something which abhors almost everyone and is almost certainly wrong and against the best interests of society but that's never going to stop self-interested paedophiles. If that holds true, I can't imagine there was ever a majority apathetic to causes like equal rights which are as noble and popular as paedophilia is degenerate and underground--they just took time to develop and catch on.

People have had to fight for their rights every step of the way, like the plebs who fought for the Twelve Tables in the time of Cincinnatus. If you know of any benevolent governments that just give people what they are entitled to --let me know.

Anyways, there's not a heck of a lot that people will fight for and as long as they have food in their stomachs and money in their wallets you are going to have a tough job inciting a popular rebellion.

I'm not talking about benevolent governments. Believe me, I'm not in favor of government in any way shape or form. But I view the government as a tool for the majority in most cases. A tool used to oppress.

[Tiwaz]

Very little. But if the people strongly believe it should end now, they CAN end it now.

A unified population is very powerful.

But do they care enough to actually get up from their asses?
It is not personally touching huge majority of people. Only rather few families, ones of soldiers doing the war part, are connected to war and it's influence.

It's all good and dandy to say "we support this and that" when it does not require any sacrifices from you.

Majority wants war to end, but they do not want to do a thing to make it happen. This is because they do not feel anything but personal opinion being at stake with that war.

Arrange a full scale draft which you can't escape and you see how people get up to the barricades.

That is art of politics, keep majority from being too inconvenienced and they won't do a thing. You do not need to even treat them that good, as long as they are not too badly abused.

I disagree. I think a unified mob is much more powerful than a unified oligarchy.

Only if unified mob is not against unified, trained and well armed army which is under control of oligarchy. Such army will *****slap mob of civvies with guns into humble submission.

[Justice and Mercy]

But do they care enough to actually get up from their asses?

Rarely.

But if the majority of the population doesn't vote, is that not democracy anymore?

No. It's democracy in which the people don't care. They have the power, but don't want to use it.

Majority wants war to end, but they do not want to do a thing to make it happen. This is because they do not feel anything but personal opinion being at stake with that war.

Right. They have the power, but they refuse to use it.

Only if unified mob is not against unified, trained and well armed army which is under control of oligarchy. Such army will *****slap mob of civvies with guns into humble submission.

Where do the soldiers come from?

If you were a soldier, would you shoot at the crowd that has your family in it, or join them?

[Tiwaz]

Where do the soldiers come from?

If you were a soldier, would you shoot at the crowd that has your family in it, or join them?

It would depend. Do you realise that every tinpot dictator has army who is generally formed from local people? And that often they are used to shoot local people...

Being native does not equal not being willing to put down rebellions if your leader tells you to do so.

[Mythos]

"Majority rule" is a byproduct of democracy. Democracy means that the "demos", the people have control of the state. Which is completely different than what you are suggesting, i.e. an oligarchy placating the masses.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Democracy is a blight on the planet, it is socialism presented in a sit-com for the bewildered herd. It is 51% of the populace overshouting 49% of the populace, with the first group heavily influenced by glitz, glam and non issues.
The only governance is limited governance, as manifested in a constitutional republic, or failing that, the traditional definition of a constitutional monarchy as limited by the great Magna Carta.

[Justice and Mercy]

Democracy is a blight on the planet, it is socialism presented in a sit-com for the bewildered herd. It is 51% of the populace overshouting 49% of the populace, with the first group heavily influenced by glitz, glam and non issues.
The only governance is limited governance, as manifested in a constitutional republic, or failing that, the traditional definition of a constitutional monarchy as limited by the great Magna Carta.

Aaand we agree.

"Majority rule" is a byproduct of democracy. Democracy means that the "demos", the people have control of the state. Which is completely different than what you are suggesting, i.e. an oligarchy placating the masses.

Eh, "democracy" means "rule of the masses". And I believe the masses always rule.


For instance, while they might not like the government stance on a particular issue, they will agree with the general sentiment of it, and so leave it be.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Aaand we agree.

Arrrrghhh....Be it wrong fer dar Captain ta always be sexooally aroosed wi' persons whot agree wit me?
Say Justice, Oi just noticed 'ow tha lamp light twinkles in yer eyes, an' tha way yoo brushes back yer 'air frum yer fore'ead......Oi tinks Oi luvs yoo.

[Mythos]

Eh, "democracy" means "rule of the masses".

No, it doesn't. Not in the way you put it. Democracy means direct control of the state by the citizens. Period.

[Justice and Mercy]

No, it doesn't. Not in the way you put it. Democracy means direct control of the state by the citizens. Period.

I "put it" in the way Webster tells me to.

[Mythos]

I don't see anything about "rule of the masses" (a phrase with often associated with communism) in Webster.

[Justice and Mercy]

I don't see anything about "rule of the masses" (a phrase with often associated with communism) in Webster.

You're making this far too complicated.

Democracy means majority rule.

[Sleeper]

Democracy never exists.

[General Sun]

Majority-rule is usually the case when societies are just beginning.

It is only when the gap between the rich and poor gets too wide that plutocracies and oligarchies start happening. In the 19th and 20th century, it is capitalism that opened the doors to give wealth to those that don't already have political power.

One interesting political belief is the separation between republics and democracies. Though republics utilize representatives to make decisions, the concept is still that power lies in the people, a dangerous and unsustainable concept as Plato so articulately argued.

That's why this concept rarely holds, in most of the republics in the world, power waxes between majority rule and rather autocratic rule. But that may be the ideal situation in any case as neither people nor politicians are perfect.

[Cyphon88]

I would go with sleeper here, democracy never exists. Even in democracy in its true form is just a form of utilitarianism (in a very crass simplified manner).

And Democracies don't fully exist anyway, as seen by the continuation of ruling elites like the eton-oxbridge in the UK and the very prevelant dynasties of the bushes and Clintons and so on and so on.