It’s not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will.
That’s… Exactly what democracy is though. Like Brexit is a great example of this. The majority forced the minority against their will.
I take the rest of your point though and agree. We just need to get past the “one or two arseholes” issue. I’d be happy with some kind of supermajority decision making process.
It’s not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will.
That’s… Exactly what democracy is though
Only to some extent. Modern democracy typically includes some forms of minority protection to reduce the risk of a “Tyranny of the majority”.
That said, the EUs qualified majority system already has some such measures, like giving smaller countries more votes in parliament relative to population.
Also every country has an equal vote in the council.
Nah, the expression has merit in political science, it has only recently been profaned by the US reich wing, because they like to couch their bigotry in the language of science, sociology and intellectual rigor. Because by misusing and coopting those terns, they get to redefine them in the public eye and weaken arguments against their position that rely on those terms.
Your perception of the term “tyranny of the majority”, a term originally coined to point out the conservative overreach against and suppression of minorities, is a great example of how they colonize language.
Aye, you’re right in that democracy isn’t just one singular concept, there are various forms.
But think on what the idea of democracy is supposed to represent. It’s supposed to be rule by the people. If 48% of the people are having their authority to rule superceded by the 52% then how can you say it’s rule by the people? It’s rule only by the majority. Democracy only in colloquial common parlance.
The word democracy has been bastardised even since its very conception so it’s difficult to define without arguments. The EU however have already defined their democracy at the highest state level on similar principles that anarchists do, of consensus. All countries are equal, all countries can say no. This will throw that away in favour of less democracy, less equality, less say in how the continent functions, in tyranny of the majority.
It will be the beginning of the end for the European project. And I’m not saying that lightly or as hyperbole.
If 48% of the people are having their authority to rule superceded by the 52% then how can you say it’s rule by the people? It’s rule only by the majority.
Wouldn’t a more elegant solution be more thought put into what kind of votes need a supermajority or some specific % over 50 to need a successful vote? Surely at some point, for it to be a democracy, you do need the majority rule to win the day, right++? I’d argue one or two nations vetoing a thing agreed upon by everyone else is more explicitly anti democratic than those nations needing to abide by a vote they handily lost.
I think the EU is at the limits of what a loose confederation can do, we’ve seen historically these arrangements just can’t really function long term on a large scale. And the argument here is that for Europe to stay relevant in a world where the US and China, not to mention Russia, exists if not as outright adversaries then stiff competitors, there needs to be a better ability to coordinate this like military and money. Especially the latter, I’d argue… how many European start ups immediately abandon ship for the US as soon as they go public because there’s a pile of investment money there rather than the fractured markets of Europe? That problem is never going away on its own, even with the US playing target practice with its feet (slight digression there, but I think it’s one of the most obvious examples of why the EU needs reform towards stronger federal power).
At a certain point, if you want a large functioning democratic body with any power, you need to submit to the decisions of that power whether you agree with the decision or not. That’s not just colloquial versus not, that’s the very essence of democracy imo. If you can just opt out of decisions you don’t like, that’s not really democratic rule, that’s just a forum for discussion.
++(Obviously, this implicitly needs rights and protections to prevent one group from outright repressing another, but still, a veto seems like a really, really inelegant solution to avoiding tyranny of the majority situations.)
You are making the mistake to believe the EU can only compete by becoming what it despises. This will have the opposite effect in reality, with the EU breaking apart.
You are making the mistake to believe the EU can only compete by becoming what it despises.
shrug I don’t see a path away from it; separate, the individual nations aren’t big enough to be relevant. China isn’t going to be supplanted for the manufacturing hub nor the US as the financial hub without more cohesion, and so Europe will continue to lose relevancy in terms of ability to influence world geopolitics.
We’ve seen time and time again promising European countries jump ship for the US when it’s time to go public… the money is here in Europe but broken into fractured markets with just as fractured rules and regulations. Why would a company looking for investment bother when they can just go to the US and get one big pile of it?
This isn’t even addressing even more practical problems like military.
Confederacies just don’t last very long historically. They either break or become more centralised eventually.
First two that come to mind as the most problematic and needing reform are the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the United States nearly collapsing with the confederation is an obvious example. Can you think of any in the modern era that have succeeded long term?
in an misguided attempt to force unity where there isn’t any anylonger
Put another way: they were already falling apart. Them falling apart wasn’t the fault of centralising. It was the fault of the loose union giving the governing body too little power to govern effectively. I’ve given some examples of this in the EU with both the military and balkanized access to capital directly leading to us losing lucrative companies we created to the US. It’s like a brain drain but for wealth generating businesses. Military problems are obvious to all with Russia now and the tough spot we’ve found ourselves in outsourcing our defense to the US for decades… what is the solution to these problems if not stronger federal power for the EU? Because they aren’t going away.
I’d suggest the federalism of the US isn’t what we or most people despise about the US. The two aren’t related.
The US was at most very briefly a confederacy, and the US civil war had little to do with that despite one side calling itself such.
The EU is an obvious successful modern example, and if you want historical examples, then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations lasted a millenium and despite sometimes nominally having an emporer it was practically a confederation.
And besides, ask some person living in a Democrat majority US state how they feel about the current Trump administration of their federal government interfering with their life and sending a militarized police occupation force into their cities?
The US was at most very briefly a confederacy, and the US civil war had little to do with that despite one side calling itself such.
I was referring to the articles of confederation, not the Confederacy, and how short lived it was was my point.
The EU is an obvious successful modern example
The EU as a governing body and not just a trade group really isn’t that old yet.
and if you want historical examples, then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations lasted a millenium and despite sometimes nominally having an emporer it was practically a confederation.
The needs of a modern global economy are completely different, though.
That said, I’m happy to just say we agree to disagree on whether this is broadly true or not.
I would like a response to my specific points though about trouble the EU is running into and how up fix those problems if not more federal power to the EU? How do you stop EU companies from jumping ship to the US for their large single investment market without a competing consolidated European one? How do we mount our own effective defense force without a central power to manage it?
And besides, ask some person living in a Democrat majority US state how they feel about the current Trump administration of their federal government interfering with their life and sending a militarized police occupation force into their cities?
This can still happen (and historically, as the birthplace of fascismhas, has happened) in European nations within said nations, though. That’s nothing inherent to any political system.
The breakdown of the US political landscape seemingly doesn’t have a lot to do with their version of federalism; most of Europe has far more explicitly central national governments and this hasn’t happened (lately). That kind of abuse of power can happen under literally any system from fascist to socialist.
That’s… Exactly what democracy is though. Like Brexit is a great example of this. The majority forced the minority against their will.
I take the rest of your point though and agree. We just need to get past the “one or two arseholes” issue. I’d be happy with some kind of supermajority decision making process.
Only to some extent. Modern democracy typically includes some forms of minority protection to reduce the risk of a “Tyranny of the majority”.
That said, the EUs qualified majority system already has some such measures, like giving smaller countries more votes in parliament relative to population.
Also every country has an equal vote in the council.
“Tyranny of the majority” is a MAGA euphemism for “we’re not the majority.”
Dude, that expression is soooo much older than Maga. 1835 is not a year suspect of the right wing assholery of today.
Doesn’t make it any less worthless of an expression.
The majority having a different opinion doesn’t mean they are tyrants for going through with it.
Are there instances where it was the case? Sure. Look at slavery.
But the great majority of the cases it is a worthless expression made by people who can’t stand they are in the minority.
Nah, the expression has merit in political science, it has only recently been profaned by the US reich wing, because they like to couch their bigotry in the language of science, sociology and intellectual rigor. Because by misusing and coopting those terns, they get to redefine them in the public eye and weaken arguments against their position that rely on those terms.
Your perception of the term “tyranny of the majority”, a term originally coined to point out the conservative overreach against and suppression of minorities, is a great example of how they colonize language.
Are saying, the French Alexis de Tocqueville who died in 1859 was a Trump follower?
Aye, you’re right in that democracy isn’t just one singular concept, there are various forms.
But think on what the idea of democracy is supposed to represent. It’s supposed to be rule by the people. If 48% of the people are having their authority to rule superceded by the 52% then how can you say it’s rule by the people? It’s rule only by the majority. Democracy only in colloquial common parlance.
The word democracy has been bastardised even since its very conception so it’s difficult to define without arguments. The EU however have already defined their democracy at the highest state level on similar principles that anarchists do, of consensus. All countries are equal, all countries can say no. This will throw that away in favour of less democracy, less equality, less say in how the continent functions, in tyranny of the majority.
It will be the beginning of the end for the European project. And I’m not saying that lightly or as hyperbole.
Wouldn’t a more elegant solution be more thought put into what kind of votes need a supermajority or some specific % over 50 to need a successful vote? Surely at some point, for it to be a democracy, you do need the majority rule to win the day, right++? I’d argue one or two nations vetoing a thing agreed upon by everyone else is more explicitly anti democratic than those nations needing to abide by a vote they handily lost.
I think the EU is at the limits of what a loose confederation can do, we’ve seen historically these arrangements just can’t really function long term on a large scale. And the argument here is that for Europe to stay relevant in a world where the US and China, not to mention Russia, exists if not as outright adversaries then stiff competitors, there needs to be a better ability to coordinate this like military and money. Especially the latter, I’d argue… how many European start ups immediately abandon ship for the US as soon as they go public because there’s a pile of investment money there rather than the fractured markets of Europe? That problem is never going away on its own, even with the US playing target practice with its feet (slight digression there, but I think it’s one of the most obvious examples of why the EU needs reform towards stronger federal power).
At a certain point, if you want a large functioning democratic body with any power, you need to submit to the decisions of that power whether you agree with the decision or not. That’s not just colloquial versus not, that’s the very essence of democracy imo. If you can just opt out of decisions you don’t like, that’s not really democratic rule, that’s just a forum for discussion.
++(Obviously, this implicitly needs rights and protections to prevent one group from outright repressing another, but still, a veto seems like a really, really inelegant solution to avoiding tyranny of the majority situations.)
You are making the mistake to believe the EU can only compete by becoming what it despises. This will have the opposite effect in reality, with the EU breaking apart.
shrug I don’t see a path away from it; separate, the individual nations aren’t big enough to be relevant. China isn’t going to be supplanted for the manufacturing hub nor the US as the financial hub without more cohesion, and so Europe will continue to lose relevancy in terms of ability to influence world geopolitics.
We’ve seen time and time again promising European countries jump ship for the US when it’s time to go public… the money is here in Europe but broken into fractured markets with just as fractured rules and regulations. Why would a company looking for investment bother when they can just go to the US and get one big pile of it?
This isn’t even addressing even more practical problems like military.
Confederacies just don’t last very long historically. They either break or become more centralised eventually.
[citation needed]
(And they often break apart after briefly becoming more centralized, in an misguided attempt to force unity where there isn’t any anylonger)
First two that come to mind as the most problematic and needing reform are the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the United States nearly collapsing with the confederation is an obvious example. Can you think of any in the modern era that have succeeded long term?
Put another way: they were already falling apart. Them falling apart wasn’t the fault of centralising. It was the fault of the loose union giving the governing body too little power to govern effectively. I’ve given some examples of this in the EU with both the military and balkanized access to capital directly leading to us losing lucrative companies we created to the US. It’s like a brain drain but for wealth generating businesses. Military problems are obvious to all with Russia now and the tough spot we’ve found ourselves in outsourcing our defense to the US for decades… what is the solution to these problems if not stronger federal power for the EU? Because they aren’t going away.
I’d suggest the federalism of the US isn’t what we or most people despise about the US. The two aren’t related.
The US was at most very briefly a confederacy, and the US civil war had little to do with that despite one side calling itself such.
The EU is an obvious successful modern example, and if you want historical examples, then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations lasted a millenium and despite sometimes nominally having an emporer it was practically a confederation.
And besides, ask some person living in a Democrat majority US state how they feel about the current Trump administration of their federal government interfering with their life and sending a militarized police occupation force into their cities?
I was referring to the articles of confederation, not the Confederacy, and how short lived it was was my point.
The EU as a governing body and not just a trade group really isn’t that old yet.
The needs of a modern global economy are completely different, though.
That said, I’m happy to just say we agree to disagree on whether this is broadly true or not.
I would like a response to my specific points though about trouble the EU is running into and how up fix those problems if not more federal power to the EU? How do you stop EU companies from jumping ship to the US for their large single investment market without a competing consolidated European one? How do we mount our own effective defense force without a central power to manage it?
This can still happen (and historically, as the birthplace of fascismhas, has happened) in European nations within said nations, though. That’s nothing inherent to any political system.
The breakdown of the US political landscape seemingly doesn’t have a lot to do with their version of federalism; most of Europe has far more explicitly central national governments and this hasn’t happened (lately). That kind of abuse of power can happen under literally any system from fascist to socialist.
you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means