(V): And there is very strong support around the world for governments to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of the 27 countries.

This sounds scary. And it proves to me again that the majority of people are complete idiots.

Pedro Martínez:

OMG!!!! I was totally ready to give a quick post about how stupid the majority of the people are, and then I read your and ADs posts.... LMFAO!!!!

Czuch:
KMFDM
Keine Mitgleid für die Mehrheit
No pity for the majority

Pedro Martínez:

>  it proves to me again that the majority of people are complete idiots

If that is the case, can democracy be justified?  If the majority are idiots, isn't dictatorship better then?

Pedro Martínez: Yes it is.. but there is also the consideration on how much money does one need? A couple over here won £45 million in the Euro lottery. That's £2 million a year in interest. Footballers wanting £100K a week in wages. One got slammed for moving club over being paid only £55K a week.

I don't think those who've got 100's of millions+ would miss a 0.1% contribution to a local scheme, whether local council or to local charities.

Artful Dodger:

In other words, since the masses are stupid, it is better to let the oligarchic elite make all the decisions while the masses are merely convinced that they have political power when in reality they don't.

I imagine then that Obama passing legislation for health care reform through Congress can be justified.  The majority of the American public opposed the legislation, but then the majority is rather stupid so Obama is justified in forcing through unpopular legislation.  Then the complaints we hear from the public are nothing more than a reflection of their ignorance and stupidity.

If this is the case, imposing an unpopular policy over the population is acceptable when the masses are ignorant and fail to understand the policy.  Subverting democracy is justified for the greater good.

Übergeek 바둑이: Someone said, democracy is not perfect, but it's the best system so far.

The majority are use to being played, in certain respects they play on our hard wiring.. Thinking is discouraged in certain areas. Politicians play the game and so do the media.. and of course... the adverts selling stuff.

... a tv show did a test re in-store advertising on 'special offers'. To cut a long story short.. make sure they are real 'special offers', as most of those put to the test didn't and spent more then just going for regular stock.

(V):

I was trying to get to the fact that those who right now are telling us that the majority is stupid will be the first to complain about "big" government and the government "telling us what to do".

I grew up in Guatemala under a real distatorship.  The kind that sent tanks into the streets, made people disappear and massacred 300,000 people just to keep the capitalist elite in power.  Anybody who thinks that the majority is stupid is just arrogant.  Just because the majority of the people hold a view opposite to mine it does not mean that they are stupid.  It is like saying "I am smart and the rest of the world is stupid".  It is just arrogance.

The masses might not be well informed.  They might hold backward views.  They might be easily manipulated by demagogues and the media they control.  They might choose undesirable people to lead them.  However, if the masses are stupid, then why promote democracy or freedom?  Why send 1.5 million Iraqis to their deaths?  1.4 million Afghans?  6 million Vietnamese? 3 million North Koreans?  If the masses are stupid, then it is impossible to justify those wars fought to "protect freedom and democracy".

Übergeek 바둑이: now you are a man that KNOWS what he is talking about instead of the usual CCP...thank god, it is so refreshing

Übergeek 바둑이: the masses ain't stupid, nowadays there is no such thing as a totally contolled media, even in 'restricted' populations. Misled at times.. yes. Fear is a powerful tool and can result in a 'don't care' situation where governments can do things that are 'invisible' ..

That time is ending.. the internet saw to that, as does the old word of mouth. Communities talk, just wish the media moguls would stop perverting events.

(V):   "The masses" could do some stupid & dangerous things long before we had this infiltration of the right-wing radicals poisoning the airwaves.  The masses in the Southern US voted consistently for segregation of blacks & whites in the 40s, 50s, & 60s.  They also voted against interacial marraige by huge majorities.  It took "activist" courts to purge the nation of such overt discrimination.  Fast forward to today & the "activist" courts may have to provide similar protection for Gays.  Its called a system of checks & balances.

Ferris Bueller: Throwback to slavery unfortunately, still the idea that white is God.. or as in today's world.. hetro and American.

Artful Dodger: Yes, unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people actually research who they are voting for. Many people go with a name just because they've heard of it. (All those people waving signs at intersections right around election days). Or they know their friend/mom/uncle/boss is voting for someone, so they go the same way.

Or with incumbents, people won't actually find out what their voting record is, and ask themselves if that is the way they want the person representing them to vote.

Or people get "stuck" in their party. I imagine there are a lot of moderate republicans, or moderate democrats who might actually find there is someone in the "opposite" party who would actually be a good match. (I'm not a big fan of the 2 party system)

In other words, there just aren't enough responsible voters.

Plus, let's face it, the majority isn't always "correct".. They just have the numbers.

Artful Dodger: If you are not a democracy, and you find as such "impossible to sustain"...

.. why does your governments go putting it on others. And as such, a republice is just a variation on democracy surely. A representative democracy instead of a direct one or a deliberative democracy.

And these days.. is there such a thing as a pure democracy?

Artful Dodger: So can we over here. Our laws allow a civilian to put forward proposals and law changes through their MP or a campaign, etc.

"t least when the US does it, there is freedom in view. Take East Berlin for an example."

The cold war caused oppressive dictatorial governments to be set up/supported by both the free west and the communist east. Who's freedom? If a country is used in order to maintain one's borders it's not free. People flocked to the UK after WWII and still do, even though other Euro states will take them, the UK is the preferred destination.

"Stay out of their business except where it concerns our shared interests."

ChAoS theory applies to such a view.

Artful Dodger:

>  In a Democracy, if you have a majority of "stupid people" then they can rule the minority.
>  In a Republic, all voices can be heard.  Even a minority can pass rulings over the objections
>  of the majority.  It's the reason a Republican form of government is better than a Democratic form.
>  They differ in that one aspect.

Not all democracies are republics, and not all republics are democracies.

The UK is a democracy, but not a republic.  The Soviet Union was made of republics, but they were not democracies.  I think that you are referring to James Madison's definition of a republic as a representative democracy, in contrast to a direct democracy.

Well, we can edify ourselves if we have some patience to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

One thing I will say, make sure you don't confuse republicanism with the Republican Party, and democracy with the Democratic Party.  The names of those parties have little to do with the actual definition of republic or democracy.

Artful Dodger: .. A stone makes ripples in a pond, they say through six people we know everyone.

In other words.. how sure that where there appears to be no shared interest there is no shared interest or an indirect effect.

Artful Dodger: Courts can make legal precedent. I'm reasonably positive this is not the only way courts can influence law.

Artful Dodger: A legal precedent can lead to complete law changes or ways things are done in the judicial system. It may not be intentional law making, but can lead to it.

(V): Its true.... again the gay marriage debate... The courts made their rulings on it, and then the legislation is made, then the people vote it all down! But if we had not voted it down, then the courts would have definite influence on the law.

Artful Dodger: And in the past.. who made the laws? Back in da old days those who implemented the law were often the ones making it. I see people getting laws through Parliament. Judges saying old laws don't apply.

You can argue this point all you like, it will not make it true.