AC Hypothetical

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
2. The democracy in practice consists of two parts: 1) a belief in rule by majority and 2) a systematic way to assess and implement the rule of the majority. Item 1) is democracy, item 2) is a technical exercise. When item 2) doesn't "work", i.e. the preferences of majority are not enacted, that's not a problem with "democracy".


[/ QUOTE ]
So democracy consists of two things. When one of those two things fail it's not a problem with democracy. Gotchya.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does there have to be this contest in the first place? In a free market, if 51% of Americans want coke, they buy coke, and the other 49% who want pepsi go and get pepsi (hey part of that 49% may want sunkist, sierra mist, sprite, mountain dew, and guess what, they can get it if they want). In democracy, 49% are subjected to a contest where they have drink coke just because the majority wants coke. That's ridiculous.


[/ QUOTE ] Yup, it sure is ridiculous the way that our democracy forces us all to buy coke. Oh, wait.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's an anology. Guess what coke represents?
[ QUOTE ]
As noted, this is a failure in item 2) above.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and item 2) you have already said is part of democracy.
[ QUOTE ]
You should be complaining about the failure of representatives to do what their constituents want.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a flaw in all democracys known to man, because there is more then one preference yet only one can be picked. I don't see why the majority is so holy and should be forced on everyone (even if it actually is the majority) anyways. What if democracy actually did do it's job and ruled based on majority? That's doesn't make it good.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
So democracy consists of two things. When one of those two things fail it's not a problem with democracy. Gotchya.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you didn't get me. Democracy in practice is those two things: democracy (rule of the majority) + a system that is designed to determine the majority and enact it's decisions. I don't believe that pointing out one (or even many) shortcomings of existing systems is proof that no suitable system exists.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does there have to be this contest in the first place? In a free market, if 51% of Americans want coke, they buy coke, and the other 49% who want pepsi go and get pepsi (hey part of that 49% may want sunkist, sierra mist, sprite, mountain dew, and guess what, they can get it if they want). In democracy, 49% are subjected to a contest where they have drink coke just because the majority wants coke. That's ridiculous.


[/ QUOTE ] Yup, it sure is ridiculous the way that our democracy forces us all to buy coke. Oh, wait.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's an anology. Guess what coke represents?

[/ QUOTE ]

Something completely different from coke in nature that renders your analogy pointless?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As noted, this is a failure in item 2) above.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and item 2) you have already said is part of democracy.
[ QUOTE ]
You should be complaining about the failure of representatives to do what their constituents want.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a flaw in all democracys known to man, because there is more then one preference yet only one can be picked.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not differentiating between "failure to represent the majority" and "failure to represent everybody". Democracy can't work with A, but makes no promise to prevent B.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why the majority is so holy and should be forced on everyone (even if it actually is the majority) anyways. What if democracy actually did do it's job and ruled based on majority? That's doesn't make it good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're making sense. One can certainly take the standpoint that the rule of majority has unpleasant consequences for the minority (duh). But this string started from the line of argument "democracy sucks because the will of the minority is being imposed by the U.S. government democracy". There is a clear difference here.

Now back to the "holiness" of democracy - the point is not that the rule of the majority is somehow the ultimate goal. The point is that it is the ultimate achievement*. Show me another political philosophy and I'll show you a system that is at best rule of the majority with a possibility (and perhaps likelihood) of rule of the minority. Therein lies the support for democracy.

*IMO, obviously. Clearly supporters of AC or non-interventionist libertarians believe that the result of their system would be no imposition on groups by other groups. I find that hard to believe, but I acknowledge that it is a noble dream (and would certainly be better than democracy if it could be actually be realized).

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you didn't get me. Democracy in practice is those two things: democracy (rule of the majority) + a system that is designed to determine the majority and enact it's decisions. I don't believe that pointing out one (or even many) shortcomings of existing systems is proof that no suitable system exists.


[/ QUOTE ]
I guess that would depend on what preference you have with regards to what suitable means here, but I get your point much better now.
[ QUOTE ]
Something completely different from coke in nature that renders your analogy pointless?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some enjoy online gambling, some don't. Some enjoy smoking in bars, some don't. Some enjoy basic taxed healthcare, some don't. Some enjoy social security, some don't. The list goes on. Maybe your objection applies to some things, but not many.
[ QUOTE ]
You're not differentiating between "failure to represent the majority" and "failure to represent everybody". Democracy can't work with A, but makes no promise to prevent B.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not so much not differentiating as much as adding on. The systems commonly used to attempt (or at least they say they attempt ) to implement majority to rule commonly fail. However, even if they didn't fail, is this even the standard to be adhere to?
[ QUOTE ]
Now back to the "holiness" of democracy - the point is not that the rule of the majority is somehow the ultimate goal. The point is that it is the ultimate achievement*. Show me another political philosophy and I'll show you a system that is at best rule of the majority with a possibility (and perhaps likelihood) of rule of the minority. Therein lies the support for democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think any system is going to have big gapping flaws when implemented by human beings using force. That's why I don't support such systems.

This may or may not be wrapped up, I thank you for the stimulating discussion though. It's nice when we can have arguments around here that don't end in bickering and insults. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]