Time for a change!

By -
Some guy on Twitter said, "Democracy is by definition the antithesis of tyranny."

Well, tyranny has several definitions, but I figure he's using the common one, meaning an out of control government that does not respect citizens' rights or legal restraints.

So I respond, "Well, no: if the people rule without constitutional constraint, that is mob rule, a sort of tyranny."

His response? "Who is ruling without constitutional constraint?"

The question on the table was whether by definition tyranny is the opposite of democracy. But is soon as he realized he had lost on that topic, he immediately change the subject to the question of "Right now, is our current democracy a tyranny?"

Obviously a very different question.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who does this: it is like trying to shake hands with an eel.

Comments

  1. Prateek11:58 AM

    The Roman Tyrants, by the way, were not exactly without popular support.

    They were considered usurpers because of the illegitimate way they gained power, but not because they did not have popular support among wide swathes of people.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more