Propaganda/tyranny of the majority

From CWRE
< Propaganda
Revision as of 13:28, 21 July 2015 by Woozle (talk | contribs) (Created page with "category:implicit arguments ==About== The phrase "tyranny of the majority" is an implicit argument that the majority should not impose their will on the minority because t...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" is an implicit argument that the majority should not impose their will on the minority because this is essentially a form of tyranny.

Examples

  • Admiral Taptap says "The collective free will of the vast majority of the US citizenry CHOOSES the taxation system established in the Constitution." Anthony Loera responds "what you describe is called the Tyranny of the majority".[1]

Reality

This phrase is basically a transparent attack on the idea of democracy. If the majority don't make the decisions, then the only other choice is for a minority, without the consent of the majority, to make the decisions.

It's also an attack on the idea a group can make decisions which apply to all its members, which is sometimes necessary for a group to thrive or even to survive.

Snark

"Tyranny of the majority" – gosh, how terrible to let the majority of people be the deciding factor in decisions that affect everyone.

We should clearly be letting just a few people call the shots, and the rest of us should shut up when they "put guns to our heads" to get what they want, because the Invisible and Entirely Voluntary Hand of the Free Market hath anointed them from upon high by sending them down the blessings of Absurd Wealth from the Great Pie Chart in the Sky, thus proving them worthy to wield the Cudgel of Coercion in whatever manner they deem fit.

A pox on all their houses. Their ideas are incompatible with a civil, egalitarian society.

Caveat

As US founder James Madison observed in Federalist #10, we must be careful not to let a cohesive majority abuse a minority – but this is why the US government was designed with various checks and balances to prevent such abuse. However poorly these checks may work in some cases, Madison was never arguing that people shouldn't have to follow rules they don't like.

Links

Footnotes

  1. 2015-07-21 comments on Google+ discussion