/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1183343]

Democracy is a massive logical fallacy. It is recognized that the fact that a lot of people believe something does not make it true or morally right. That is why we use the term "argumentum ad populum" to describe an argument that attempts to use the number of people for a position to evaluate its truth. Yet when enough people vote for something suddenly people forget about this argument.
LOL, that's fucking stupid.

[None !UyhAEqbnp. No.1183352]

The Anime troll returns

[Anonymous No.1183351]

me not understand
and how be Haruhi related

[Anonymous No.1183360]

>>1183352
I wouldn't assume it's troll since trolling such slow board is like teasing a dead dog.

[Anonymous No.1183357]

I understand that this is a troll but doesn't he kind of raise a good point? Can someone give a counter-argument?

[Anonymous No.1183366]

>>1183357
"Why do you hate freedom?"

[Anonymous No.1183376]

Its the best from the worst ones, commie.

[Anonymous No.1183389]

ending a logical argument that was probably copied from some other websitewith LOL fucking stupid makes it invalid

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1183390]

You're right, it is a terribly flawed ideal. That is why it must be approached with a degree of dogmatism.

For example, even though the majority of the British population are in favour of capital punishment for heinous crimes, it continues to be staved off by actual, learned politicians.

Too bad it's the best humanity has came up with so far

[None !UyhAEqbnp. No.1183401]

>>1183360
lol, try harder OP. You were better back when you trolled /adv/. But you catch on to the Haruhi motif after a while

[Anonymous No.1183432]

The hoi polloi will never arrive at a positive opinon on anything, thats why I still all my opinons from Bill Hicks. - Denis Leary

[Anonymous No.1183434]

Elected governors opinions don't suddenly become absolutely right or undeniable true after being elected. People are allowed to disagree with their opinions after being elected. Maybe if after someone being elected all criticism and opposition was forbidden your argument would make sense.

[Anonymous No.1183446]

>implying the democratic process is anything but an illusion fed to us by the rich eli-ANARCHY ANARCHY ANARCHY ANARCHY

[Anonymous No.1183471]

>>1183434
You missed my point. My point is that for some reason people think democracy is the system we should use to determine how the government should be run and who should run it, when in reality this is stupid for the reason listed in the OP.

[Anonymous No.1183482]

>>1183343
you do not understand the democratic process at all, do you

it's absolutely true that the belief of the masses does not make something true or morally right, but the democratic process does not attempt to establish that it does (at least in liberal democracies as they actually exist; some radical democratic theorists would obviously agree with that proposition, but they are all assholes. I'm looking at you, Rousseau). Liberal democracies include that "liberal" bit for the protection of minorities, to establish certain norms and laws above the rule of the majority, a structure within which the democratic process operates. Democracy is not an attempt to ascertain truth or moral rightness; it is rather an organizing principle in society, an attempt to generate legitimacy for the government and to ensure that the government remains of and in the interests of the populace. It is certainly not a simple statement that what the majority wants, it gets. Arguably liberal democracy could be seen as an attempt specifically to escape that sort of position.

[Anonymous No.1183486]

As Mencken said: Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

[Anonymous No.1183496]

>>1183482
two points

1. I am *not* responding to people who argue that democracy is good for "practical reasons". An example would be someone who argues that democracy is good because it provides some check on absolute governmental power.
2. I am responding to people who believe that democracy is valuable on and of itself as a moral form of government because they are saying the RIGHT way to organize society is to let "the people" decide.

[Anonymous No.1183502]

>>1183343
nice straw man op.

[Anonymous No.1183506]

Since when is the goal of a political system to attain moral rectitude or truth? I'd settle for "doesn't fuck around in my shit unnecessarily while preventing the collapse of society" myself.

[Anonymous No.1183510]

>morally right
That's like, you know, totally demography. Also, what kind of fucked up shit is that, that you have to make your state aim towards 'truth' or 'moral right-ness'? I don't want nonnadat, gimme my fucking McDonalds.

[Anonymous No.1183513]

Shut the fuck up, Suzumiya Haruhi.

[Anonymous No.1183519]

>>1183506
People who say we ought to use democracy because the will of the people should done are arguing that what the people want is morally required of us

[Anonymous No.1183520]

>>1183496
>2. I am responding to people who believe that democracy is valuable on and of itself as a moral form of government because they are saying the RIGHT way to organize society is to let "the people" decide.

oh, yeah, those people are obviously stupid. but you should prolly phrase your complaint in a more clear way, just sayin, because it's real easy to read you as disagreeing with democracy in any form, and not with the notion of the absolute supremacy of the majority or of the 'general will'

[Anonymous No.1183523]

>>1183482

You seem to be overlooking that fact that the 'democratic process' as a term may be just as how you put it, but in operative terms it's a fallacious myth that doesn't exist. True representation is a joke in modern politics where popularity and pure mediocrity stand in for anything resembling free-thinking or courage. Words have lost all meaning; tone, inflection and the avoidance of offending anyone are the only things deemed meritorious anymore in our so-called representatives. Didn't matter that Bush was a twit whose vocabulary didn't extend beyond grade-school for he was a steadfast, no-nonsense, strong leader etc. etc. ad infinitum

[Anonymous No.1183538]

>>1183523
So, basically, you're Christian?

[Anonymous No.1183541]

democracy is one of the biggest sacred cows in modern society and political thought

check these out, OP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjMeqminwz8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkKblERRpKc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86tyPW8CNNo

[Anonymous No.1183543]

>>1183523
republicanism, pee pee doo doo

it's true that our current political system is pretty far removed from anything that can be truly called democratic or any kind of freedom in the sense in which arendt, for example, uses the word. but that's kind of inevitable in any modern, large-scale state - you need quite a bit of technocratic expertise to govern. attaining that kind of ideal democracy would require a massive reordering of society.

[the caps are locked babe No.1183552]

VOX POPULI VOX DEI MOTHERFUCKER

[Anonymous No.1183554]

Uhh no you've misunderstood, I'm an agnostic and not politically affiliated whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.1183560]

>>1183554
Is this in response to >>1183543

because what I meant by republicanism is the political idea that democratic ideals can best be accomplished by the appointment of duly-chosen representatives of the people, rather than by direct democracy, such that the united states is a democratic republic and not a democracy

[Anonymous No.1183566]

>>1183543

I wasn't advocating republicanism and certainly wasn't endorsing Bush, I was being facetious with my descriptions of him as a strong leader, etc. Just a little irony for effect.

[Anonymous No.1183612]

bump for butthurt

[Anonymous No.1183625]

>>1183560
Yeah this is all tricky tricky stuff, the balance between republicanism and democracy is I dunno, off-kilter presently, I'm not sure really because the idea of a republic is sort of nice but when people vote on their bullshit moral issues rather than well-thought out political/societal systems we end up with retards in congress. I've thought that perhaps the internet could be used as a tool for a radical change of our government into an almost direct democracy. Perhaps establishing an online system whereby people use their Social Security #s as identification and each citizen is allowed one vote on whatever bill/law congress is proposing to put into effect.

Obviously such a system would need to be heavily secured but I imagine the NSA or whomever could pull it off. Perhaps the "peoples' vote" could be accounted for the tallying of the house/senate, or let them replace the VP as tie-breaker, who knows it'll never happen but it's kind of interesting to me nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.1183637]

>>1183625
frankly, it's my opinion that american democracy (in its current, constitutional form) is more or less doomed, and won't last the century. probably not the next 25 years. so yeah. american republican constitutional democracy is dying or dead. in my view.

[Anonymous No.1183661]

OP's statement is something reasonably intelligent people realize when they are children. Then they realize that we live in a world of consequences, not of ideals.

[Anonymous No.1183693]

>>1183637

the fundamental flaws of democracy are not limited to its american form as much as eurofags would like to believe

[Anonymous No.1183699]

>>1183693
I am an American. Also, that opinion is based not on the ideology of democracy, but on the specific circumstances of American politics. For a variety of different reasons (involving political discourse and engagement, political military relations, campaign funding, etc) I just don't think the long-term prognosis for American democracy and democratic institutions is very strong at all.

[Anonymous No.1183702]

>>1183637
reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated. november 2010: when america gets back on track

[Anonymous No.1183705]

>>1183702
talk more

[Anonymous No.1183733]

I'd like to see democracy take advantage of the internet. The idea of 'anybody and everybody can assume control of the US' is obviously flawed, but if you were to combine it with technocracy, you'd have something much more efficient than what we have now.

[Anonymous No.1183745]

>America
>Constitutional Republic
/thread

[Anonymous No.1183769]

>>1183745
the only people who still give a shit about the constitution are ostracized from the rest of congress

[Anonymous No.1183796]

"At any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation, and prejudice." - Gore Vidal

[Anonymous No.1183798]

>>1183796

[Anonymous No.1183814]

>>1183343

There is no "right"

Argument invalid.