• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trump's Coup - Part 3

Paul2 said:
How do you define the word “democracy?”
Click to expand...
I don't think any system really represents the will of the people. You tell me what you mean by democracy, and we'll go with that. Whatever it is, I suspect I'm not going to think it really means that the will of the people is what is being represented.
 
shuttlt said:
I don't think any system really represents the will of the people. You tell me what you mean by democracy, and we'll go with that. Whatever it is, I suspect I'm not going to think it really means that the will of the people is what is being represented.
Click to expand...
Im really confused. I asked you how you defined “democracy,” and I don’t find a definition in what you wrote. I could *infer* one, but I want to be clear on what *you* think a democracy is.

Can you be clear on what you think the definition of *democracy* is?
 
Paul2 said:
Searching for Hoa only gets me a lot on homeowners associations. What do you mean?
Click to expand...

Did you actually read up on these associations? My meaning should be clear. HOAs are about as pure an example of direct democracy representing the will of the people as you could possibly ask for.
 
My property deed specifies in no uncertain terms that this shall not be sold to someone not of the white race. It's called a covenant. It is, of course null and void...but with the stroke of a willin' pen...
 
theprestige said:
Did you actually read up on these associations? My meaning should be clear. HOAs are about as pure an example of direct democracy representing the will of the people as you could possibly ask for.
Click to expand...
OMG, that IS what you meant!

Oopsie.
 
Fidelio said:
My property deed specifies in no uncertain terms that this shall not be sold to someone not of the white race. It's called a covenant. It is, of course null and void...but with the stroke of a willin' pen...
Click to expand...

I own a piece of property that has a covenant that my slave quarters have to be of some minimum size, if I build them.
 
shuttlt said:
I won't debate you on this. I we are going to call this a coup, then well..... I keenly await the evidence to be presented in court.
Click to expand...

Evidence has been presented against several hundred defendants in court over the past year, and continues to be presented.
 
Paul2 said:
Im really confused. I asked you how you defined “democracy,” and I don’t find a definition in what you wrote. I could *infer* one, but I want to be clear on what *you* think a democracy is.

Can you be clear on what you think the definition of *democracy* is?
Click to expand...
I was happy to go with your definition. I don't think I have any controversial views on this. If you think it would help - a system of government where people either make decisions, or choose their leaders by voting. It's not a definition I've thought about very hard, so don't hold me to it.
 
zorro99 said:
Evidence has been presented against several hundred defendants in court over the past year, and continues to be presented.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not going to debate you on this. I don't think there is much point. We will just butt heads pointlessly.
 
shuttlt said:
I was happy to go with your definition. I don't think I have any controversial views on this. If you think it would help - a system of government where people either make decisions, or choose their leaders by voting. It's not a definition I've thought about very hard, so don't hold me to it.
Click to expand...
Let's look at what happened: when I wrote:

Paul2 said:
The prior goal of democracy, before the goal of a peaceful or happier society, is to create a society in which the will of the electorate is realized to the greatest extent. Obviously, the theory is that, when the electorate's will is realized, that will tend to produce a happier and more peaceful society. But the process of getting to that happy and peaceful society - realizing the will of the electorate - is essential, given that it is definitional.
Click to expand...
I was speaking definitionally (if that's a word), and said so explicitly (last word highlighted above). So when you said,

shuttlt said:
Who says that is the purpose of democracy? I'm sure it's been said, but the people I can immediately think of saying things like this were idealists and philosophers. That doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
That was a category mistake, because it is actually lexicographers, not idealists nor philosophers, who say that expressing the will of the electorate is what a democracy is, by definition. Definitions aren't things that are true or false, they are conventions accepted within a language. That's why I had to ask you what definition of democracy you were working from. That's all this has been.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
That was a category mistake, because it is actually lexicographers, not idealists nor philosophers, who say that expressing the will of the electorate is what a democracy is, by definition. Definitions aren't things that are true or false, they are conventions accepted within a language. That's why I had to ask you what definition of democracy you were working from. That's all this has been.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's the game. I see. I didn't invent democracy, nor have I instituted a democracy, nor have the people who wrote the dictionary, nor have the people whose "common understanding" went into the definition. This is just a rearticulation of the conventional wisdom that you are defending. That the great majority of people in democratic countries believe something like this, I don't dispute. Rearticulating the claim doesn't advance the argument.

Conventions within a language don't tell you what the purpose of a thing is. One could create a "peacekeeping" force with a charter and a mission statement and all the rest of it. The fact that the claimed purpose is peacekeeping, doesn't mean that that is its purpose. Trumps purpose was to "make america great again" but I don't see too many people on this forum taking that as some kind of definitive statement about what motivated his platform.

If I instituted a perfect democracy with the purpose of getting rich and with not the slightest care or interest in representing the "will of the people", would that perfect system no longer be a democracy? Where does this "purpose" live?

All sorts of falsehoods and fictions get packaged up in the conventional definitions of words.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
Oh, that's the game. I see. I didn't invent democracy, nor have I instituted a democracy, nor have the people who wrote the dictionary, nor have the people whose "common understanding" went into the definition. This is just a rearticulation of the conventional wisdom that you are defending. That the great majority of people in democratic countries believe something like this, I don't dispute. Rearticulating the claim doesn't advance the argument.
Click to expand...
It's not a claim at all. It's a definition of a word. If we don't agree on what a word means, we can't communicate.
shuttlt said:
Conventions within a language don't tell you what the purpose of a thing is. One could create a "peacekeeping" force with a charter and a mission statement and all the rest of it. The fact that the claimed purpose is peacekeeping, doesn't mean that that is its purpose. Trumps purpose was to "make america great again" but I don't see too many people on this forum taking that as some kind of definitive statement about what motivated his platform.

If I instituted a perfect democracy with the purpose of getting rich and with not the slightest care or interest in representing the "will of the people", would that perfect system no longer be a democracy? Where does this "purpose" live?

All sorts of falsehoods and fictions get packaged up in the conventional definitions of words.
Click to expand...
If, say, a peacekeeping force is instituted and its goal is *not* to keep the peace, but something else, it's not really a peacekeeping force, it's a sham of a peacekeeping force, because an actual peacekeeping force's goal is to keep the peace, by definition. Similarly, if a democracy is falling far short of expressing the will of the people, it's not really a democracy, by definition.

All of that, though, is within some margin of error, so that you can have a peacekeeping force that does *some* of goal of a peacekeeping force; you can have a democracy that expresses *some* of the will of the people, in some ways, at some times, etc. The US is widely regarded as *not* a pure democracy, for instance. Merely having representatives dilutes to some extent the will of the electorate.
 
Paul2 said:
It's not a claim at all. It's a definition of a word. If we don't agree on what a word means, we can't communicate.
If, say, a peacekeeping force is instituted and its goal is *not* to keep the peace, but something else, it's not really a peacekeeping force, it's a sham of a peacekeeping force, because an actual peacekeeping force's goal is to keep the peace, by definition. Similarly, if a democracy is falling far short of expressing the will of the people, it's not really a democracy, by definition.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean by the word, therefore we can communicate. I don't care what the definition is so long as I understand what you are saying. That's why I wasn't interested in coming up with a definition for you. I'm not making an argument about the dictionary definition, except the dictionary is just telling you what people mean when they use a word rather than any deep truth.

Paul2 said:
All of that, though, is within some margin of error, so that you can have a peacekeeping force that does *some* of goal of a peacekeeping force;
Click to expand...
That doesn't need to be the case, and you seem to have moved away from it being their purpose now.

Paul2 said:
you can have a democracy that expresses *some* of the will of the people, in some ways, at some times, etc.
Click to expand...
Absolute monarchy expressed some of the will of the people. Was the purpose of absolute monarchy to express the will of the people? Anyway, we have moved away from a claim about purpose to a claim about how a thing behaves. Are you still making a claim about purpose?

Paul2 said:
The US is widely regarded as *not* a pure democracy, for instance.
Click to expand...
Sure. Are any of those metrics about its purpose?

Paul2 said:
Merely having representatives dilutes to some extent the will of the electorate.
Click to expand...
It most certainly does.
 
shuttlt said:
I know what you mean by the word, therefore we can communicate. I don't care what the definition is so long as I understand what you are saying. That's why I wasn't interested in coming up with a definition for you. I'm not making an argument about the dictionary definition, except the dictionary is just telling you what people mean when they use a word rather than any deep truth.
Click to expand...
OK, we're on the same page.

shuttlt said:
That doesn't need to be the case,
Click to expand...
Sure. A particular case - a particular, specific peacekeeping force - may fulfill the goals of a peacekeeping force as it is commonly understood and defined - or it may be a sham.
shuttlt said:
and you seem to have moved away from it being their purpose now.
Click to expand...
No I haven't. The goal of a true peacekeeping force is to keep the peace. The extent there is some other goal is the extent it is not a full, complete peacekeeping force.

shuttlt said:
Absolute monarchy expressed some of the will of the people.
Click to expand...
Either by coincidence, or when the will of the people was to be ruled by a monarch. Sure.

shuttlt said:
Was the purpose of absolute monarchy to express the will of the people?
Click to expand...
The original, starting-point purpose of a monarchy is to place power in the hands of the monarch. That's in the definition of a monarchy.
shuttlt said:
Anyway, we have moved away from a claim about purpose to a claim about how a thing behaves. Are you still making a claim about purpose?
Click to expand...
I think you are making "purpose" do a lot more than I meant. I don't see any particular need for purpose in my account of all this beyond what's in the definition of the word. So a monarchy places power in the hands of the monarch. If you want to call that the "purpose," fine. Same for democracy and expressing the will of the electorate.


shuttlt said:
Sure. Are any of those metrics about its purpose?
Click to expand...
See above.

So, in the US, one of the most direct and pure ways democracy is expressed - in light of all the other ways that pure democracy is limited - is the election of the US House. If you are committed democracy in the US, then you should be loathe to see elections for the US House influenced too much by redistricting.
 
Paul2 said:
The original, starting-point purpose of a monarchy is to place power in the hands of the monarch. That's in the definition of a monarchy.
Click to expand...
Was it? Who stated this? Whose purpose? The Pope may have had one view of the purpose of monarchy, the king who had just slaughtered his way to the throne another, and the peasants who were sick of all the fighting something else. Which of them gets to choose the purpose of monarchy?

Paul2 said:
I think you are making "purpose" do a lot more than I meant. I don't see any particular need for purpose in my account of all this beyond what's in the definition of the word.
Click to expand...
You were the one that was using a definition of democracy that it was about purpose and arguing with me that the purpose of democracy being about the "will of the people" was "definitional".

You said this:
There's another way to evaluate democracy. The prior goal of democracy, before the goal of a peaceful or happier society, is to create a society in which the will of the electorate is realized to the greatest extent. Obviously, the theory is that, when the electorate's will is realized, that will tend to produce a happier and more peaceful society. But the process of getting to that happy and peaceful society - realizing the will of the electorate - is essential, given that it is definitional.
Click to expand...
What did you mean that "realizing the will of the electorate - is essential"? If it is just a restatement of your definition, then it doesn't seem to have any additional information content, and I don't see how stating a definition refutes my claim that in practice democracy does not and can't reflect the will of the people in any useful degree.

I realise I am uncertain about something important here. Maybe the word "useful" is the key one in that last paragraph. What do you mean by "the will of the people? If the people got to vote on which of two people would rule them, but both of them represented views wildly at odds with the population - say it's Portland and they are offered the choice between two neo-Nazis.... would that in any sense be the will of the people? How about if they were choosing between two people they knew nothing about? If they held a referendum in North Korea where the people voting had no access to outside information, would that referendum usefully reflect the "will of the people"? What does "the will of the people" mean and how does representing it make society happy and peaceful?

Paul2 said:
So a monarchy places power in the hands of the monarch. If you want to call that the "purpose," fine. Same for democracy and expressing the will of the electorate.
Click to expand...
You are the one who started talking about purpose. If we are just talking about what the thing does rather than it's purpose, then I disagree with your definition of democracy. Democracy does not give power to the people, or the will of the people in anything but a notional sense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom