Mastodawn

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

The US constitution was drafted by a cabal of wealthy slavers and landed aristocrats who repeatedly announced “we hate democracy because poor people might vote to not be exploited by us anymore” and crafted a political system to ensure their perpetual class rule and people are really unsure how the US could have ended up in the situation it’s in now.

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum You're oversimplifying a lot by lumping all non-modern-democratic ideas into the same basket.

There is a distinction between the democracy of the landed gentry, with all of its flaws and inequities, and out and out oligarchy.

And it's right to point out that their acceptance of slavery and their exploitative attitude towards 'the mob' is in contradiction of their stated ideals.

The US founding fathers were hypocrites, not oligarchs (also worshipping them is weird, America).

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@BoysenberryCider

If “landed and slave owning elites who monopolized political and economic power for themselves as a class” don’t constitute an oligarchy, I don’t know what would.

Aristocrats taking turns ruling over a subject population is not “democracy of the landed gentry” because it is not democracy at all.

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum Your definition of 'democracy' is unhistorically narrow, and 'aristocrat' too wide. Democracy is a system, not a synonym for 'equal, righteous goverment'.

'Demos' + 'kratia' = rule by the people. 'The people' meant 'our kind of people', and excluded many. The franchise has since expanded, which is good.

'Oligos' + 'arkia' = rule by the few, fossilised concentration of power in the hands of a group.

There can be overlap, but you're bending the words to make your point.

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@BoysenberryCider

No, I am using these words carefully and precisely. The concept of “rule by the people” is incompatible with “rule by some of the people.”

And casting periodic ballots for aristocrats competing in a popularity contest can, in no way, be said to constitute *rule* by the community of ballot casters, regardless of how expansive the franchise is.

Magnus Ahltorp Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @BoysenberryCider If “rule of the people” has to mean that everyone situated/living in a specific area is eligible to vote, I agree that it is the way it should be, but it’s also a non-helpful definition when discussing the specific flaws in American form of government compared to other countries, since it’s not the case in any country in the world.

@ahltorp @BoysenberryCider

Do you really imagine that periodically casting ballots for elites competing to rule you for various periods of time meaningfully constitutes democracy, in the sense of “people ruling themselves”?

I am also unaware of any polity that permits everyone living within its borders to vote in elections in that polity.

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp

You don't seem to distinguish between 'democracy' and 'good democracy'. Years of US sloganeering about democracy are to blame, but by itself it's only a system. You have to work for the equality and justice parts.

It's like saying 'how can you call this a 6 cylinder engine, it's so slow' - It has 6 cylinders and it's an engine, any more than that and you're talking about quality.

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@BoysenberryCider @ahltorp

Again, no. I am using the term “democracy” in its most literal sense—rule by the people or people ruling themselves.

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp You are using your own individualised definition of democracy, as opposed to the definitions already used over thousands of years.

Is there any country today that is democratic, by your standards? If not, you might need another word to capture the purity of your intent.

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@ahltorp @BoysenberryCider

No, I’m using the word in as precise and literal a sense as I possibly can—rule by the people.

There are no states that are democratic, because the state is incompatible with democracy.

Magnus Ahltorp Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @BoysenberryCider If only members of the “elites” are possible to vote for, then that is a very valid criticism. But it’s unhelpful if even one person not being able to vote is disqualifying all other efforts to make democracy happen.

In Swedish local elections “everyone” is eventually able to vote. The reason for the quotes is that you might get thrown out before that or become undocumented. But it is still not everyone (because of the caveats above, and because it takes time).

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@BoysenberryCider @ahltorp

I have a strong hunch that not everyone can vote in Swedish local elections. Children? Non-citizens?

But again: being able to periodically cast a vote for someone else to make decisions for you does not constitute “people ruling themselves,” any more than US or Roman or Venetian aristocrats are or were “democratic” because some of them held office through elections.

The Holy Roman Emperor was an elected position. We would not consider the Holy Roman Empire a democracy, even though it held periodic elections, and this would not have changed through a gradual expansion of the number of prince-electors.

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp here you're taking issue with representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, at least using conventional terminology.

I'm not the biggest fan of every aspect of representative democracy, especially since a lot of those systems are getting pretty rusty, with two party politics and abuse of electorate boundaries being common problems.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@BoysenberryCider @ahltorp

I am an anarchist; I suggest anarchism, ie, democracy.

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp That makes a lot more sense than how you were putting it before.

No criticism against anarchism at all, but that's not what most people mean when they're talking about democracy.

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@BoysenberryCider @ahltorp

Yes, most people, like you, use the term sloppily.

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp If we're getting into the ad hominem stage of things:

You know exactly what democracy means by every academic and practical definition, and you know that what you are saying when you use the word isn't what a lot of people hear.

Practicing mental reservation doesn't exactly engender trust.

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@ahltorp @BoysenberryCider

For most people, “periodically voting for which aristocrat will rule them for a given period of time” is what constitutes democracy, alongside some general sense that democracy is the process by which a community makes decisions together.

The conflation of these two very unlike phenomena is largely the result of centuries’ of work by elites to convince people of this.

I accused you of being sloppy because you are. You opened this conversation by accusing me of manipulating definitions, and yet I’ve been explicitly and consistently using the term in its most literal sense (which you condescendingly tooted at me above)—unlike you.

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp
So more or less, when pressed you agree that you're defining the word differently to everyone else.

I didn't intend to be condescending, I like to think I would have been funnier if I was doing it on purpose.

Out of curiosity, how do you deal with those people who quote definitions of anarchy meaning 'creates chaos? A terrorist? That's what the dictionary says!'

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@ahltorp @BoysenberryCider

We’ve entered the realm of sealioning, and I’ve run out of patience for you.

Violet Madder Apr 5, 2025

@BoysenberryCider @HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp

When certain terms have been aggressively warped, hijacked, and re-defined by relentless propaganda a la 1984, there just might be a bit of a problem with how most people are using those words...

Paw-1|426 Apr 5, 2025

@BoysenberryCider

Ad hominem: "You're wrong because you're part of this unreliable group".

Not ad hominem: "You're doing a common mistake."

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

In Internet debate club, ad hominem has come to mean “you’re insulting me”

Paw-1|426 Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum

Debate pests: comes condescendingly into the discussion and flood posts with sealioning and passive-aggressive comments.

Also debate pets: How dare you be mean to me? This is literally a logical fallacy.

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

I think a lot of them genuinely do not register how badly they are behaving. Insulting, condescending, dismissive, and then absolutely lose their shit at the first whiff of someone doing it to them.

Magnus Ahltorp Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @BoysenberryCider Children are included in the “eventually”. Non-citizens can vote in local and regional elections after a fixed number of years (unless they are deported before that, which is an increasing problem with the current government situation).

National elections are only open for citizens, which is a big problem when you have a government that opposes non-hereditary citizenship and naturalisation.

And as you are saying, being able to vote is not enough for democracy.

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@ahltorp @BoysenberryCider

So not everyone can vote, and voting doesn’t constitute democracy. Glad we could agree!

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp
1. I just say the words, you take them how you will.

2. Okay, do you see a difference between preventing tyranny of the majority and ensuring elite rule? As I mentioned, Montesquieu wasn't thinking of elite privelege when he came up with Separation of Powers.

3. Yes, since it's so obvious, please point out a few offending sections. I'm a simple man, and know not of what I speak.

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@BoysenberryCider @ahltorp

There has never been a “tyranny of the majority.” It has never once operationally exists. It does, however, serve as an excellent bogeyman for justifying elite rule to people like you, as a bulwark against this alleged threat.

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp Boogeyman or not, it was a primary concern of the architects of modern democracy when they were conceiving of post-feudal structures.

Also, no such thing as tyranny of the majority? Take the way LGBTQ people have been treated from the conception of our countries until now, that is the definition of tyranny of the majority.

The majority, through ignorance, supported homophobia and it was encoded deeply in law.

The majority are no more pure than any individual is.

HeavenlyPossum Apr 5, 2025

@ahltorp @BoysenberryCider

Sure—in the sense (for example, see Federalist #10) that the most consistent and important majority was “the poor.”

Elites were terrified that granting power to the majority—the poor—would allow them to abolish exploitation by the rich.

There is not and never has been a political system in which the majority holds power over the minority. The US is not and never has been ruled by a majority of its public, in any sense.

Please go away now.

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp Sure, I'm gone! That last point was quite good. Quibbling aside, I wish you well, and I'm glad that there are strong willed advocates for change around like you! Stay well, and keep doing good.

Magnus Ahltorp Apr 5, 2025

@BoysenberryCider @HeavenlyPossum Who are “the architects of modern democracy” and when were they “conceiving of post-feudal structures”? Are we talking about Mary Wollstonecraft and her husband?

Sharp Leaves Apr 5, 2025

At the request of @HeavenlyPossum I'm giving it a break, but if you're interested, tag me in a discussion elsewhere.

I'll put a clarification and leave it there: I meant Montesquieu, Voltaire and the philosophers influential amongst French and American revolutionaries, and were used to defend against the idea that democracy was lawlessness, as spoken by contemporary monarchists (I'm less familiar with others but I know there are more).