Democracy is more than just majority rule!

[DonaldNice100]

Gang rape is Democratic

[ImperialRussianGuard]

While it may be unfortunate if 51 % of people oppress the 49% of people it is in no way undemocratic.You say that in order for something to be a true democracy it must have respect for "human rights". This however has little to nothing to do with the ideas of democracy. In a democracy the majority rule is of what decisions are based on, not if they are just or not. So no matter how barbaric the majorities decision is, it is in no way undemocratic.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

So be in the majority duh. Defend the majority. Assimilate into the majority and they'll be no problems. Never be a minority.

[kiamarukeemos]

what?

[aARIESsSs]

the truth, okay, democrat or republican, whether you choose one or the other is of no consequence, if you refer back to 1913, and the "federal reserve act" the federal reserve not being federal at all, you realise you government is now run by international bankers, they loan your gov. money with interest, so the debt is un payable, when the gov. can print it free of interest, thats the trick, you foot the bill (income tax) the president is just a puppet, and that is the truth

[aARIESsSs]

if you want further proof, look up executive order 11110, JFK tried to end the federal reserve, and give the power back to the people, he tried to free you, thats why they shot him from the from eg (his head flew backward after shot) three shoot teams triangulated on him, and thats a fact, research it i dare you executive order 11110 and the federal reserve act 1913. so you vote literally means nothing! and you cant argue because the truth is self evident. SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

[BuyCandy]

Some "human rights" are necessary for democracy. Other "human rights" are for protecting copyright holders.

[oldhacks]

you do know about ni4d , dot, us don't you?

[waltermh111]

nice video

your not alone in this issue, but why do people choose to put their face so close to the camera?

For some reason its weird i guess? Dont know, anyway

The US is a democratic republic.

On the federal level we are fully repiublic. No popular votes are made on anything. Even popular vote in presidential election mean nothing.

On state/local level, we do vote directly on many issues with use of representatives on many others.

The more local the level the more democratic we become.

[CousinoMacul]

I like to change things up. Right now I'm playing around with the "up close" format.

"On the federal level we are fully republic."

The legislative branch is, but the strong executive and the policy setting judiciary are non-republican (in the purest sense of the word).

Thanks for the comment.

[waltermh111]

Executive does represent us without us directing its every vote right?

Its simply like a senator that guides the overal direction of the government during its term.

All republics have a leader, and the fact that this one is not voted on directly, but by represenation sounds like it keeps to what I said.

Please explain how you would explain the executive and judicial branches?

[waltermh111]

Judicial is also by representaiton on the federal level, not voted on by the public.

While the judicial branch is autonymous in general, the president does appoint many judicial positions which are approved by our representatives in congress.

[RichardBeddard]

"until someone "steals" your "stuff" and kills you when you make them angry.

without a government.. the strongest rule. "

The strongest always rule... that's why they're the rulers. If the weakest were the rulers, the strong would merely say "You're weak and I'm not going to take your shit". Besides, having no government in no way means that there is no order; contrarily, government means that the state is constantly fighting to defend its own power. As Proudhon put it, "anarchy is order."

[RyuuKyuzo]

Simplify! No government is the best government =)

[sniktawleahcim]

until someone "steals" your "stuff" and kills you when you make them angry.

without a government.. the strongest rule.

[RyuuKyuzo]

Really? Reeeaaaallllyyyyy? You don't see the problem in what you just wrote?

I don't know about you, but I have better reasons to avoid killing and stealing than just because the government will crack down on me.

If people are naturally violent and destructive then we absolutely can NOT have a government because it will be made up of violent and destructive PEOPLE. It would constantly destroy itself, assuming anyone would even agree long enough to set another government up.

[KingHeathen]

nicely put....good stuff.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I think there's a difference between a democracy (majority rule) and a constitutional democracy (guaranteed protections for minorities against majority rule.) Like Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

[CousinoMacul]

Jefferson was correct in a sense. My argument is that the two types of democracy that you mentioned are symbiotic with each other. If you try to establish one without the other, you are doomed to fail and end up with neither (or both in the best case scenario).

[mootallica]

you remind me of Kevin Spacey.

[Katalyzt]

Agreed

[helgihg]

The United States *is* a democracy in any meaningful sense. A democracy is where the people have a say in the government, and a republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive by any means.

Furthermore, a "republic" is not a clearly defined concept. Iran is a republic. The Soviet Union was a republic. Iraq was a republic under Saddam Hussein and still is. The US is a democracy *and* a republic and there is no contradiction there of any sort.

[CousinoMacul]

Thanks. I hadn't even thought about the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Soviet Socialist Republics. You're exactly right.

[bryantulsa]

You've got it pretty much right. Democracy requires some non-democratic rights in order to function, else it quickly ceases to be a democracy. Contradictory-- maybe. But this is not an abolutist world. The alternative is to have the worst of both worlds. Instead, we get the benefits of democracy AND the benefits of rights.

nicely done.

[stratvic]

If the rights infringed do not restrict the ability to vote, is it still democratic?

If we require consent to be held by the result of the vote for democracy to exist ... what happens if someone or a group decide they wont be held? ... and either does or does not vote?

Are non voters considered to be withholding their consent? Perhaps they should be if not an option on the ballot.

All minorities have to be protected from the majority regardless of size otherwise it is tyranny.

[CousinoMacul]

"Are non voters considered to be withholding their consent?"

This is a very difficult question. Do you mean disenfranchised non-voters (such as non-citizens or women before the XIX amendment)? Or those who choose not to vote when they're entitled to? And why don't they vote: negligence or protest? Does it even matter?

[stratvic]

Those who refuse/choose not to vote when they're entitled to in exercising their right not to be involuntarily subjected to the the choices of others.

Does it even matter? It does if democracy is rule with the consent of the the governed. This question is addressed in some constitutions where the vote is considered failed if turnout is below a threshold. In such a system the "no vote" campaign has immediate effect.

If 50% vote, and 50% vote against... only 25% support some of the platform.

[waltermh111]

I dont vote because I simply believe that nobody is right and we are in a continual experimentation to determine the best path

I accept the will of the people

I actually dont trust people to make all the right decisions, but I rarely talk to a person i can agree with on enough issues that give me any reason to believe my vote will add to enough like votes to matter

I am of beliefs that are on the fringe, but I do my part by educating anybody that will listen on my views and hoping for the best

[waltermh111]

honestly, i am pretty much apathetic to the path taken because while what i just said is true, i am a minimalist with simple needs and can live in any kind of society.

I work, sleep, eat, abhsorb all information that comes to me, and educates others on the issues of the day as best I can.

I am a philosopher, and all i need are my own thoughts to be happy.

[waltermh111]

I think its a chicken and egg problem for many non-voters.

They dont vote because they dont see the system working for them

They dont vote the officials out of office because they dont think they can or that anybody is good enough.

They gave up on the system so dont even consider the option of running themselves or finding somebody they like to run

[waltermh111]

They dont consider that it may be because so many think that way, that this group may be a majority but too many gave up and diminished the power of those who believe like them but have not given up yet

So they defeated themselves, the system didnt defeat them

Hope that makes sense

I think australia makes voting mandatory

or you are fined? But the cards are mailed to the citizens directly so its easy

I dont know how well it works, but some have been using it for years without issue i believe

[stratvic]

I have a moral objection to the principle that the majority should rule over the minority. Voting is an expression and tacit acceptance of the principle that might makes right. I object to the act of voting in that it is an attempt at trying to secure a majority with which to rule. I do not want to accept the process and therefore refuse to participate or accept the result as legitimate. I accept that given the choice between being shot and complying that I will comply, that being the modus.

[lamfrazier]

I agree with you. Basic human right should not be up for vote . But...

(Q) Who/What decides which rights are basic? (A) The courts via the constitution. The constitution is flawed and evolving. (Q) Who/What changes the constitution. (A) Popular votes and/or Representative votes.

I think the only solution to this problem is to issue licenses to allow people to vote. Then that opens up another can of warms...

[kurtilein3]

lamfrazier:

"I think the only solution to this problem is to issue licenses to allow people to vote."

wrong. google: 1948 universal declaration of human rights. there you go, problem solved. let the people maybe vote on it once, come up with a constitution based on it, a modern election system that allows more than a 2-party-dictatorship, and thats it.

[stratvic]

A solution is voluntarism and pluralism. If the States don't like constitutional changes they can secede unilaterally and peacefully.

[unassumption]

Sounds like your flip flopping with the definition; protecting rights doesn't have any more to do with democracy as it has to do with Oligarchy or Monarchism they're different ideas. Of course for democracy to really work the people have to all have as equal power as they can have; they should not be swayed by those in charge of the media or education or production but consolidation of power which is semi-inevitable means they will be.

[CousinoMacul]

The term "flip flopping" implies indecisiveness; I was very deliberate in how I transposed the different definitions.

"protecting rights doesn't have any more to do with democracy ..."

From Webster's:

democracy ...

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges

My argument is that both meanings are required or else the system will fail and cease to be democratic in either sense of the word. I'll need to elaborate in a future video.

[premed2]

Olson & Boies for the win!

[CousinoMacul]

Let's hope so, because a backfire would be a major setback. Why take a big risk when you've already got the momentum?

[2bsirius]

I wish we had the attention span for a true democracy. My misgiving about going that way is that it might mean that only those who are willing to put great amounts of time into reading, understanding and finally voting on every referendums...Sadly, I can't see that happening right now in America.

But, yes, there are certain inalienable rights which CANNOT be put to a popular vote under any circumstance...Human rights are among those rights...

[popebenadict16]

a ten minute chat with the average voter is enough to put you off democracy for the rest of your life.

winston churchill.

[CousinoMacul]

Churchill also said that democracy is the worst possible system ... except for all the rest. :-)

[popebenadict16]

are you saying he was right or wrong?

[waltermh111]

i think hes saying nothings perfect and probably none are good, but its a choice of the least evil

sounds like it to me

i think socialist democrat sounds good to me

en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Social_Democracy

But everything is really a hybrid, so we can eincorporate some of this system into that one and as always, keep experimenting til we get it right.

Not that I think the US system is terribly bad. It works out well enough, but what do humans do that isnt done with turbulance?

[Darwinsgift]

Democracy has worried me for a while now. In Britain we have a three main party system which means that those elected can still get less than half the vote. This in effect gives a minority rule in many elections and false representation.

[CousinoMacul]

That's one of the reasons that I believe that balance of power is so important.

[patflix]

Amen! The California Supreme Court saw fit to grant equal protection to gay couples who wanted to marry. This decision was based on law. The popular success of Prop 8 which reversed the court's decision was based on fear, ignorance and religion (redundancy intended). I agree completely with what you're saying. Hope you address this further.

[CousinoMacul]

I will, just not sure when.

[kirke420]

I thought California was a blue state???

Banning gay marriage?

A republican governor who stated that he joined the republican party be cause he wanted to be like Nixon?

And isn't San Francisco in Ca? Aren't there, like, more gay people per capita there than anywhere in the world? (Warning: 70% of all statistics are made up on the spot?)

I'm just so confused...

Sorry that I didn't have anything intelligent to say. :)

[waltermh111]

US has a few odd states like that.

But it was mostly out of state funding in the millions that convinced so many people that prop 8 was a good thing.

Many black people claimed that its the homosexuals and supporters fault for not spending enough money in their area.

Religious people had a huge advantage in this thing. Some things even a liberal will go against their beliefs when religion is involved.

Besides, SF is only one city in Cal

Arnold is an oddball, and i think a liberal republican

[AlmightyAtheismo]

≠

There's a "Not equal" sign you can copy and paste for the vid description.

[CousinoMacul]

I actually knew that but forgot. :-(

[roberto8ag]

It seems to me that this video could be a good representative of the statist liberal stupidity and absurdity, I mean paradox...

This video goes directty to my playlist Religious Non-Sense, nope, to Politicks. Oh well, what the heck, both.

[mistaspot1]

Most minority rights are protected by the courts. It's just this issue of gay marriage that's disputed. Many people don't agree that it's a fundamental right.

All other fundamental rights are protected by the courts. We can't vote those away.

We live in a democratic republic. It's the best system. But "consent of the governed" is a must. We all agree to obey the laws of society. Even the criminal who has been convicted of breaking them and sentenced to death. He consented.

[unassumption]

Being born in a plot of land =/= consenting to obey the laws of the people who are in the majority there. Consent is shaped by circumstance anyway, it changes all the time, it's fairly meaningless. All consent of the majority means is that the government will stay in power and not be overthrown.

[kurtilein3]

"All consent of the majority means is that the government will stay in power and not be overthrown. "

the US government might come along and try to overthrow your government, like when they kidnapped hugo chavez. or your own military might overthrow your government. or a political party that failed to win the election might overthrow the government. and if the majority is against the government, it can still use brute force and totalitarianism to prevent being overthrown.

[mistaspot1]

"Being born in a plot of land =/= consenting to obey the laws of the people who are in the majority there."

Oh, I agree, but it is insofar as you can move and not be subject to the laws anymore. That's the thinking, at least.

Consent isn't meaningless. It's the whole basis for civil society.

[unassumption]

I know this line of thinking, the problem being it's harder to move out than theory suggests. Consent is the basis for democratic society, and I believe it's flawed (because people consent to different things at different times, because what people consent to is determined by their present or past circumstances, because people can shape each others consent, problems with implicit consent) which seems to remove the basis from civil society and democracy.

[mistaspot1]

"It's harder to move out than theory suggests."

That might say more about other nations than it does about the one you live in, though. Consent isn't flawed. You agree to subject yourself to whatever laws your fellow citizens make. This means you consent to have your later lack of consent nullified. Without this there's no such thing as law. Maybe some people are coerced, but that's more a problem with coercion than consent.

I think social contracts that don't expire are unjust.

[waltermh111]

actually, the courts called unconstitutional the first california vote to restrict homosexual rights.

So even the courts acknowledge that homosexual rights are protected under the constitution, but religions hatred of all things is strong enough to keep trying.

The recent court ruling on the issue is still in procesa. Hopefully justice does come out of california in the end.

[HaleyMary]

Most propositions sometimes seem to be written so that only the government officials involved in writing it can understand them. Unfortunate since a lot of the citizens go to the polls to vote.

[mistaspot1]

Propositions written by government officials are called referendums.

Propositions written by the citizenry are called initiatives.

We all need to fight for the right to have initiatives instead of referendums in our respective states. It would be good if we all did thorough research beforehand, but that's not very likely.

[windham666]

the smallest minority is the individual; theoretically we have a constitution and bill of rights to protect the individual, and to provide for power-sharing among the feds, the states, and individuals. it is the beauty of marbury versus madison, i suppose, which gives us a supreme court with the power to decide fine lines between the majority rules and the minority/indivudual rights. obviously the majority is willing to deny rights to the rest; without our courts to prevent this, we are lost.

[CousinoMacul]

Agreed! The courts are the guardians of justice and protectors of the rights of minorities. Our three branches of government is one of the best inventions of democracy imo. As much as the courts aren't supposed to "make law", it's hard to deny that Roe v Wade and Miranda v Arizona are "the law of the land." And as far as I'm concerned, that's the way that it should be; I can't imagine a better way to protect the rights of the minorities.

[GadflyGonk]

*****

[Chrisnoscrub047]

first.