• 2 Posts
  • 365 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 8th, 2025

help-circle
















  • Chattel slavery is incompatible with liberal democracy. There’s no fuzzy area to debate the point.

    I would agree with that. Can you point to where we were discussing liberal democracy?

    For any policy authored by the enfranchised majority that impacts the disenfranchised minority, its passage and execution is categorically and indisputably undemocratic.

    So no laws involving children or immigrants, then?

    You’re doing exactly what I’m arguing against. You’re attributing a bunch of other qualities to “democracy,” and demanding that they be treated as part of the actual definition.

    I think we are done here. You’re arguing against things I’m not writing.


  • One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer.

    Yes, that is the general answer for who gets to vote. But as I describe, that doesn’t guarantee fair.

    To get what we think democracy means, we need as fair system, (who gets to vote) and a fair election. (votes counted properly)

    But you’re missing my point. I’m not arguing that a restricted voter population is a good thing. I’m arguing that it’s still a democracy, provided it meets certain qualifications. I’m arguing that words have meanings, and that we shouldn’t be letting 1960 anti-red patriotism trick is into thinking that “democracy” means anything more than leaders appointed by voting.

    A bad democracy is still a democracy. An unfair democracy is still a democracy. A corrupt democracy may be a democracy, depending on the nature of the corruption.

    And the Wright Flyer was an airplane.