h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Evidently Thomas Jefferson said "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."



What do you think? And is there more to his statement that qualifies it more?

Well firstly the electorate is less than 100% of the population.
Secondly not all the electorate are able to or are bothered to vote.
Thirdly, there may be more than two candidates / parties to choose.
Fourthly, when in power politicians generally take more notice of lobyists and influential peoples / industries etc.
...

I'm not sure but as with the gun control thread the impression I get is that in the USA (maybe other places too, but that's the stand-out for me) it always comes down to: "someone is taking something from me" rather than "society gains from this"

Well..... there can be liberal democracies and totalitarian democracies, and probably various degrees of authoritarian democracies in between.

A liberal democracy is, roughly speaking, one of "majority rule, minority rights" which limit the powers of the majority over the minority and which ring fence a set of basic equal rights which apply to everyone. It also has an underpinning principle of maximising liberty.

A totalitarian democracy could be a bit like mob rule - where there are no basic rights and the majority view always prevails. This could mean that a majority could take away the rights, property, and even lives of other people. The will of the majority seeps into every aspect of life - so we don't cater or allow minority tastes or interests any more.

It's hard to think of good examples of totalitarian democracies (perhaps the very early days of Nazi Germany?) because typically the 'democratic' element doesn't last long. But I think it was something that opponents and those who were sceptical about greater democracy and expanding the franchise worried about a lot. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it's by a majority or by an elite.

I've always thought that benevolent dictatorship is the way to go

The last example of benevolent dictatorship was Gaius Julius Caesar

Ah, first year American history.

"Democracy is a dictatorship by the masses" or something along those lines- Alexis de Tocqueville sometime in the 1850s. I wrote my first paper on him, you would think I would remember more details but it was a long time ago.

"Benevolent dictatorship" always was a puzzle to me. Benevolent to everyone? Impossible. Like history, the definition is described by those who survive.

Slightly OT: but a dude on another forum once tried to convince me that the US government is totalitarian, and when I told him it wasn't his response was "well, language evolves!"

I thought that Stalinist Russia and Moaist China were forms of totalitarian democracy, were choices were given to the people regarding positions to be filled in the peoples party. Some argued that there forms of democracy was more extensive working it way down into the workplace etc.

It's almost too well-known a quote to mention, and I don't know the exact phrasing, but it's very relevant so I refer you to Churchill: "Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the others."

That's why I'd prefer parliamentary democracy to direct democracy. It keeps the mob mentality at bay.

If dictatorship is about power and money, nowadays you will find them in the finance sector, in charge of big business, utility companies (enron etc), premiership football teams etc.

Dictatorship is about absolute, unrestricted power. Many of those you mention has a board of directors to answer to.

So do dick taters. All them Generals standing around them
with gold braid on their shoulders. They are the VPs, the
operational managers, the comptrollers, the executive and
represent the investors by acting as a board of directors;
they are not necessarily YES men. They and their extended
families enjoy many perqs. In Royal courts such as ye olde
Britannia, these would have been knights and barons who all
shared in the spoils and had direct influence on the king.

~jwf~

So one dick maketh not a dictatorship ... it takes many dicks to make a dictatorship. The head dick needs his protection otherwise he will be soon cut off.

>>So do dick taters. All them Generals standing around them
with gold braid on their shoulders.<<

Taters? What's taters?

"the impression I get is that in the USA (maybe other places too, but that's the stand-out for me) it always comes down to: 'someone is taking something from me' rather than 'society gains from this'" [Sho]

The U.S. is supposed to be a republic, not a strict democracy. When Ben Franklin was coming out of the Constitutional Convention, someone asked what kind of government he had given them. "A republic, if you can keep it, was his reply.

It's normal for *someone* to be complaining that something has been taken away, but this is a bit like the din of a baby crying in a shopping mall. The baby's cry can be heard throughout the mall, but this doesn't mean the baby wields definitive power. There is a Bill of Rights to assure that people can discuss [usually loudly ] whatever is going on without fear of prison or the gallows.

If you wait long enough, most of the outs will eventually get in. This helps to restrain all but the most impatient people.