Time for a change!

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.


  1. 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.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!