The Tyranny of the Majority And The Case For Iran
The essay On Liberty was written by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in 1859.
Mill warns about the tyranny of the majority. You can control the majority and get them to vote for, and elect, your candidates, then you can control everyone because your candidates, once democratically elected, will pass whatever laws are needed for this, as was done by Hitler's agents in the 1930s in Nazi Germany.
Mill writes:
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.
-
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reach -
Credibility
-
Post a Comment Comments: 11
For once, you found a gem on why the U.S. founders felt democracies were "two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch," whereas a representative democracy and Constitutional Republic, giving our states and people the ultimate authority with that Bill of Rights included in order to protect "the individual" and not the "corporate" was "two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch, with the lamb given the right to challenge the decision."
Which is why, although it is actually none of the U.S. business with respect to Iran's form of government, since their form of government is based on the Koran insofar as some of the Old Testament provisions, we may not agree with them and think they should follow more Christian doctrines (the "spirit" of the law rather than "letter"), their practices actually have carried through for 2,000 years and are the same as were practiced in biblical times with respect to major "criminal" offenses.
It's actually the same as the pharisetic Jewish faith insofar as Ten Commandment law. And it is, after all, their country.
If we would expect that other countries would respect our national sovereignty, how can we do any less. We can impose trade sanctions, and other forms of disagreement, but this getting militarily involved in the civil wars of other countries on behalf of not even our own but continuing to place our nation and its interests and people's safety at risk on behalf of Israel does need to eventually stop.
World War II, after all, was over 70 years ago. And they do have nuclear weaponry, and we have also provided arms to both sides at one time or another. So what DO we have to gain but lose more American lives for this basically civil mess, since I do believe we had our own after the Bush election - and our elections in this country and election process itself could use some work, since there are no "free" elections, when the candidates are selected by two "political" parties with a separate agenda that is not at all fundamentally Constitutional in any respect.
Which is why, although it is actually none of the U.S. business with respect to Iran's form of government, since their form of government is based on the Koran insofar as some of the Old Testament provisions, we may not agree with them and think they should follow more Christian doctrines (the "spirit" of the law rather than "letter"), their practices actually have carried through for 2,000 years and are the same as were practiced in biblical times with respect to major "criminal" offenses.
It's actually the same as the pharisetic Jewish faith insofar as Ten Commandment law. And it is, after all, their country.
If we would expect that other countries would respect our national sovereignty, how can we do any less. We can impose trade sanctions, and other forms of disagreement, but this getting militarily involved in the civil wars of other countries on behalf of not even our own but continuing to place our nation and its interests and people's safety at risk on behalf of Israel does need to eventually stop.
World War II, after all, was over 70 years ago. And they do have nuclear weaponry, and we have also provided arms to both sides at one time or another. So what DO we have to gain but lose more American lives for this basically civil mess, since I do believe we had our own after the Bush election - and our elections in this country and election process itself could use some work, since there are no "free" elections, when the candidates are selected by two "political" parties with a separate agenda that is not at all fundamentally Constitutional in any respect.
And some of the "societally" determined laws now, such as the "social drinking" taxes and laws, rather than addressing the making more stiff the truly drunk driving accidents involving injury or property loss, have adversely affected society due to the levels of punishments involved. We have lost all concept of "letting the punishment fit the crime" in this country. And also have lost the "civil arrest" provisions in there for some of those on the Hill that should be removed from office, and arrested by the Sergeant of Arms during some of the votes lately - since there is no inherent power for the U.S. government to "bail out" any corporate entity under our Constitution.
They were to be "regulated," and this "joint venture" of Washington and the banks and Big Three is not simply socialism, it is actually fascism. We have a bankruptcy provision. And that what it is for, so that all such "corporate" information as public corporations sold on the stock exchange need be disclosed, not hidden by Mr. Geithner.
Our country, at this point, is far worse than Nazi Germany now in its Constitutional abridgements this past seven years. Far, far worse.
And Obama much more dangerous, since he held himself out to be a Constitutional lawyer. And that, in addition to his questionable citizenship status still, is definitely a lie. I don't think, as Bush, he's even read it.
They were to be "regulated," and this "joint venture" of Washington and the banks and Big Three is not simply socialism, it is actually fascism. We have a bankruptcy provision. And that what it is for, so that all such "corporate" information as public corporations sold on the stock exchange need be disclosed, not hidden by Mr. Geithner.
Our country, at this point, is far worse than Nazi Germany now in its Constitutional abridgements this past seven years. Far, far worse.
And Obama much more dangerous, since he held himself out to be a Constitutional lawyer. And that, in addition to his questionable citizenship status still, is definitely a lie. I don't think, as Bush, he's even read it.
You wrote a sentence:
"The essay On Liberty was written by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in 1859."
oddly close to the one found at this site:
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm
Then you wrote a short paragraph:
"Mill warns about the tyranny of the majority. You can control the majority and get them to vote for, and elect, your candidates, then you can control everyone because your candidates, once democratically elected, will pass whatever laws are needed for this, as was done by Hitler's agents in the 1930s in Nazi Germany."
You meant "*If* you can control the majority..."
It is unclear just who exactly "you" is, in this paragraph.
You wrote in that short paragraph:
"...you can control everyone because your candidates, once democratically elected, will pass whatever laws are needed for this..."
How do 'you' control your 'candidates'? (Actually, they are no longer candidates, when they are elected to a legislature, or to an executive position.)
Why will 'your' candidates pass whatever laws are needed for 'this' (by 'this', I assume you mean the ability to 'control everyone')
Why will they want to do what 'you' want them to do (which is to control 'everyone')?
Who were Hitler's 'agents'?
Hitler's Nazis, contrary to myth, were *not* democratically elected.
The Enabling Act, which put the Nazis in power, was voted on under threat of violence by SA men - and the Communist Party and the Social Democrats were barred from voting. It is hard to view this as a free and open election.
So you (possibly) wrote a short sentence, and then you wrote a somewhat incoherent, and factually incorrect, short paragraph.
Then you inserted a much larger direct quote from Mills (which you cited as Mills's work, obviously).
I can't even figure out what point you are trying to make regarding the current situation in Iran.
You entitled this essay, 'The Tyranny Of The Majority And The Case For Iran'.
Iran suffers from a tyranny of the minority, the theocracy of the mullahs, and is currently in the throes of what could be a revolution for actual democracy. What is 'the case for Iran'? Is there any debate that Iran should exist?
Is this what passes for writing on allvoices - an unintelligible title, a barely paraphrased sentence lifted from elsewhere, a short ramble, and a [cited] copy-paste of someone else's writing? If I want to read JSM, I'll just read him, without your analysis / commentary / incisive linking to current events...or whatever the heck this is supposed to be.
"Jongleur" said he was left speechless (as apparently was "roberteagin") - but I'm not sure it's the *good* kind of 'speechless'.
"Ross1776" seems to think that Islam is 2000 years old. He can't be referring to Judaism, which is much older. He cannot be referring to Christianity, since he is juxtaposing Christianity against whatever he is referring to as 2000 years old (again, I believe it is Islam which he is referring to.) His writing is about as clear as "Sharihodges's".
(But at least he writes his own stuff.)
"Ross1776" also states that, "Our country, at this point, is far worse than Nazi Germany now in its Constitutional abridgements this past seven years. Far, far worse."
Ok - now *I'm* speechless.
"The essay On Liberty was written by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in 1859."
oddly close to the one found at this site:
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm
Then you wrote a short paragraph:
"Mill warns about the tyranny of the majority. You can control the majority and get them to vote for, and elect, your candidates, then you can control everyone because your candidates, once democratically elected, will pass whatever laws are needed for this, as was done by Hitler's agents in the 1930s in Nazi Germany."
You meant "*If* you can control the majority..."
It is unclear just who exactly "you" is, in this paragraph.
You wrote in that short paragraph:
"...you can control everyone because your candidates, once democratically elected, will pass whatever laws are needed for this..."
How do 'you' control your 'candidates'? (Actually, they are no longer candidates, when they are elected to a legislature, or to an executive position.)
Why will 'your' candidates pass whatever laws are needed for 'this' (by 'this', I assume you mean the ability to 'control everyone')
Why will they want to do what 'you' want them to do (which is to control 'everyone')?
Who were Hitler's 'agents'?
Hitler's Nazis, contrary to myth, were *not* democratically elected.
The Enabling Act, which put the Nazis in power, was voted on under threat of violence by SA men - and the Communist Party and the Social Democrats were barred from voting. It is hard to view this as a free and open election.
So you (possibly) wrote a short sentence, and then you wrote a somewhat incoherent, and factually incorrect, short paragraph.
Then you inserted a much larger direct quote from Mills (which you cited as Mills's work, obviously).
I can't even figure out what point you are trying to make regarding the current situation in Iran.
You entitled this essay, 'The Tyranny Of The Majority And The Case For Iran'.
Iran suffers from a tyranny of the minority, the theocracy of the mullahs, and is currently in the throes of what could be a revolution for actual democracy. What is 'the case for Iran'? Is there any debate that Iran should exist?
Is this what passes for writing on allvoices - an unintelligible title, a barely paraphrased sentence lifted from elsewhere, a short ramble, and a [cited] copy-paste of someone else's writing? If I want to read JSM, I'll just read him, without your analysis / commentary / incisive linking to current events...or whatever the heck this is supposed to be.
"Jongleur" said he was left speechless (as apparently was "roberteagin") - but I'm not sure it's the *good* kind of 'speechless'.
"Ross1776" seems to think that Islam is 2000 years old. He can't be referring to Judaism, which is much older. He cannot be referring to Christianity, since he is juxtaposing Christianity against whatever he is referring to as 2000 years old (again, I believe it is Islam which he is referring to.) His writing is about as clear as "Sharihodges's".
(But at least he writes his own stuff.)
"Ross1776" also states that, "Our country, at this point, is far worse than Nazi Germany now in its Constitutional abridgements this past seven years. Far, far worse."
Ok - now *I'm* speechless.
Publius, I can always count on you to pick apart a story, yet I am drawn to your critical comments deducing they are intended to be constructive.
I am anything but a wallflower, but Mills' warning about the tyranny of the majority blasted a chill through my soul, literally rendering me speechless. It was not even the harsh reminder of relatives killed at the hands of the Nazis--but my despair over the disputed Iran election, the silencing of the protests and murder of Neda Soltani and other innocents that only demanded the truth, and flashbacks to my own peaceful protests over the illegal invasion of Iraq while riot police lined our streets and sharpshooters manned the rooftops, only to be ignored, insulted, and marginalized by my own government along with millions of my fellow citizens. Tyranny "hits home" and I guess I'm no longer speechless.
- jongleur
I don't know about flying saucers, but "tyranny of the majority" has always been used by people who are ganged-up against. From a certain point of view, this is democratic, which basically means majority rule -- but only when the majority enjoys the freedom of choice. I can't speak about Iran, but here in the Philippines, Gloria Arroyo escapes impeachment every year because every year also comes the media leakage that her allies in Congress received bribes. And that is not democratic, but a perfect illustration of "tyranny of numbers."
The Iranian rulers are all despots. Demonstrators in Iran were systematically shot to death yesterday by the police guard who went out enforce with jeeps and trucks murdering the people and telling them to get off the streets. Supreme Council refused to change the result though they admit there are irregularities giving Ahmadinejad the office
of president. Unless there's some higher intervention I don't know myself
how to solve the problem of the Iranian regime. All I can say is, they need another Alexander the Great to defeat them. 24/6/2009.
of president. Unless there's some higher intervention I don't know myself
how to solve the problem of the Iranian regime. All I can say is, they need another Alexander the Great to defeat them. 24/6/2009.
Reported by Sharihodges
Cell phones use report code: Most Popular Reports
Site Links
Site Topics
Contributions
- Report Your News
- Add your voice and contribute via your cellphone - check out how to Report News via Your Cellphone
- Blog Widget
- Widget for Blog Owner
