Democrazy

Remove all ads!

If 51% of your country's population voted in favour of killing you and your family, would you let them?

 

No I would not.

Almost any democracy has mechanisms to protect a minority from the tyranny of majority. This can be in the form of a constitution, laws or administrative praxis.

 

This question takes democracy to an absurd extreme and shouldn't be dignified with a vote....

 

No, I would not.

On a side note: I would not let them do so also in case the aristocrats decided that killing me and my family was for the best. I would not let them do so if the charismatic leader decided thusly. I would not let them do so if the King, Pope, High Priest, the Assembly of Elders, the Council of Philosophers, the Matriarch, the Patriarch, the Lodge of the Richest or the crowd decided for the same.

My point is: every single political regime/form of government can cause such a situation to occur, some more likely than others. I am not a fan of democracy in it's current state (as I firmly believe in census suffrage), but this form of government is one of the latter.

Why? Simple mathematics. Assuming 'you and your family' from the question are not guilty of high treason or other atrocities that would threaten the community's welfare, we will come to a conclusion that the decision to kill them was unreasonable. It was a whim, a passing fancy, or, in the crowd's case, an impulse - also, needless to say, an illogical one. 51% of the population voting under normal circumstances is less likely to make such an unreasonable decision than one/few leaders. In larger groups of people, most of the usual motivations for this kind of decisions (in exemplum a personal grudge) do not affect all the voters. Same goes for passing moods.

Again: democracy is not the only political regime that enables such absurds. In fact, any government form/system we can think of can possibly cause them. In case I am taking it all too literally: it was the question, not it's intention, that I answered.

All due respect, mordea: your question is a logical fallacy.

 

maybe if they asked real nice, lol.... I kinda believe in reincarnation.

ok, IF there was some kind of supreme being who could make the whole world right but needed say your spirit/essence/soul whatever as a sacrifice would you do it yourself?

 

Let's see -- before they killed me, would I get to spend a year boinking any hot babe I happen to pass in the street? if you proffer a big enough carrot, any stick will be accepted . . . .

Ridiculous, silly question deserves a ridiculous, silly answer. Most governments, not just democracies, have mechanisms to protect against such abuses. Sometimes those mechanisms get short circuited, sure, but straight thinking people know of their value.

 

I agree with everyone, the question is absurd. The only reason I think I would accept that someone else kill me would be if I would be carrying a disease that could spread and kill a lot more people. But even still, quarantine is a better option.

Who voted for "other"?

 

Devil's advocate: the question can't really be absurd if you just allowed for a contingency where it could happen, can it?

 

This question is absurd without a plausible context? Would that suit better?

I think if 51% of the population wanted you dead it wasn't necessarily a case of whether you would allow it to happen or not.

 

Most hypothetical questions border on absurd: to avoid accusations of ridiculousness, they should have a healthy dose of probability. This one lacks it. Besides, in the given context (the question serving as an attempt to discredit democracy) it turns into an obvious case of non sequitur.

Sure, if the question was about the issue of you wanting it or not alone, I doubt anyone would even bother to respond . But, since democracy was mentioned...

 

Damn you both!

Okay, since mordea seems to have few friends here, I'll act as his advocate.

As to probability, let's use Triactus' example and say that a plague was sweeping nation x. One way offered to contain it is to eliminate the population that has it, and the question is put to a vote (Proposition X, if you will). This is unlikely, to be sure, but not entirely impossible, especially when considered historically (when plagues actually happened, etc.).

How do we know that the question is an attempt to discredit democracy? He never mentioned that, and our making assumptions to that end is a bit reckless. As to what mordea may be after, I don't know. But I suspect there is some other point that he is about to make in short order.

Don't take this the wrong way, Runescarred - just think of it as an 'excercise,' if you will.

 

I understand, really: I realized this is more of an art of conversation/argumentation practice the very moment I read:

this, which made your intentions quite obvious. And, since 'twould be most strange for me not to play along:

From the title of the thread.

Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead! In a state of emergency, no one would bother with asking the population for decisions; the laws of 'common men' in such situations are usually restricted. Not to mention that "when plagues actually happened" equal suffrage was nothing more than a strange philosophical concept. Of course, the community could decide to lynch those who carry the disease. Such a way of solving the problem, however, cannot be described as 'a vote cast by 51 of the country's population'; as it would be a spontaneous, unlawful act.

 

If I had the carved in stone constitutional right to bear arms, everything would be fine. Because then I would be within my rights to blow that 51% of the population away, including the government, with my "Commando"- like arsenal of bazookas and mini-rocket launchers. Then the other 49% and I would be able to live in idyllic happiness together forever.

 

D'oh - you win. I was only looking at the poll question.

What does this have to do with anything?!?

Just kidding. I was about to say "Okay, but what if we lived in Iran and I was caught having an affair with a christian cleric ..." but I think that would be going a little far afield.

Still, I think we should at least wait to see what mordea does with the poll results before launching the ad hominum second amendment attacks.

 

Ultimately, all societies are participated in by individuals because it brings gain to the individual. If society decides to kill you, society is no longer bringing you any benefit, thus you should no longer be a part of it, thus you are no longer ethically bound by any of their decisions. This applies to democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, etc.

In the case of Gaear's example, I would not let 51% kill me if they decided to. If I valued the society more than my own life, I may decide to kill myself, but then it's only one vote that matters: mine. In this case, it doesn't matter if 99.999% or 0.00001% want me dead, it's my decision, not theirs.

 

Ah, but those protections aren't unique to a democracy, nor are they intrinsic elements of a democracy. Democracy is simply rule by the people (ie. the majority). You can have a democracy without a constitution, and vice versa.

Granted, most democracies have *some* checks and balances, some more than others. America has a Constitution and Bill of Rights which grant certain inalienable rights to its citizens which cannot be taken away by the majority. Many other democratic countries do *not* have this. For example, freedom of speech in not guaranteed in Germany, which is why simply questioning the extent of the Holocaust can land you in jail for the crime of 'defaming the dead'.

I would argue that the fact that checks and balances even exist in democratic systems is crystal clear evidence as to why democracy (ie. democrazy) is a flawed concept. Tyranny of the majority is little better than tyranny of the monarch, or tyranny of the aristocracy.


People who are claiming that my question is 'absurd' are completely missing the point. I acknowledge that such a scenario is highly unlikely to happen in today's day and age, although I do suspect that democratic governments over world continue to deny certain minorities (or minority opinions) the rights to life, liberty and happiness. My extreme claim is simply a thought experiment which highlights why the 'majority rules' system is morally bankrupt. Anyone who subscribes to the 'majority makes right' rule opens up the door to numerous abuses against the individual.

Because whether you like it or not, the majority, via the proxy of representative government, *do* surrender your rights for you. Whether these rights be to land, the fruits of your labour, freedom of speech, to bear arms, to own a dog, to inject drugs, etc., tyranny of the majority is alive and well in the West, in spite of all the checks and balances.

Oh my! You are aware that not playing by society's rules when it doesn't benefit you to do so is seen as anathema in most democratic and non-democratic societies?

But, you are a man after my own heart. Like you, I don't see why I should engage in an activity which doesn't benefit me. People have often condemned me as being 'selfish' or 'wanting my cake and eating too', but hey, I have to look out for numero uno. No one else will.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 53 seconds later... ----------

No, sorry, you live in one of the other real-life democracies which doesn't guarantee your right to bear arms. I'm sorry, the majority voted that right away, and you have no constitutional protection.

You're ****ed now, aren't you?

 

That's an outstanding point. And I wanted to comment that often the majority can be swayed by just the right propaganda, since it sometimes tends to move as a herd (mob mentality, that has been documented), even acting against its own interests, and can be very dangerous to individual rights.

 

Exactly, just look at the current administration.

 

Current? I was thinking of the previous one!

 

It's a long-term decision. Once the decision is made to abandon society, it's pretty irrevocable, unless you're lucky enough to find another society willing to accept you. It's not a 'whenever you don't feel like playing by the rules' thing. Lesser sacrifices are made for the greater benefits of prolonged participation in society. When the sacrifice is your life, however, the 'prolonged benefits' aren't so prolonged any more.

Again, provided that you play by the rules of society until you choose to completely abandon that society, I'm in agreement. Trying to do what you want when you want and then claim the benefits of society as well, though, is definitely a case of 'wanting to eat your cake and have it too'.

I think someone can make that claim about any administration.