Democratic elections are validated by the use of terrorism

You, like me, have assumed that the subject of the debate only relates to the relationship between opposing political groups:Pro Quote: What happens when two large groups of people in Cairo decide to host the election for the next Egyptian Government?Con Quote: It is vanishingly rare when two opposing parties want to hold free elections that they resort to violence to determine who will hold the election....However, after some re-thinking of the topic, I realised it is not true that democratic elections are validated without terrorism, because society's definitions of its own moral values are blinded by misconceptions. In general, it can be assumed that in the event such misconceptions are revealed, a society would take progressive action to be consistent with its moral values. For example, if a well-published scientific study in 17th Century Alabama revealed that European prejudices about Africans were in fact prejudices, society would take progressive action to abolish slavery for as long as they remain in a state of miserable hypocrisy."Terrorism" is defined as: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.http://dictionary.reference.com..."Society" is defined as: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.http://dictionary.reference.com...Note: I refer to "society" in terms of the average human society, in the way a scientist would observe the average ape society. 1. Society provides moral sanction for majority rule in the form of democratic governments. This is because democratic governments have a system of checks and balances to prevent legal discrimination, which means the democratic majority cannot use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce only the democratic minority. In other words, everyone is equally coerced under the law.2. Society does not provide moral sanction for majority rule under any other circumstances. Example) The population of a neighbourhood is not allowed to use unsanctioned majority rule, in terms of using violence and threats to gain the consent of other neighbours, to host a democratic election for the governance of that neighbourhood. Instead, they have to resort to morally-sanctioned majority rule in the form of a democratic government.3. All democratic governments are derived from "unelected regimes". Note: the only reason we refer to one particular extortion racket as an "unelected regime" and another as an "extortion racket" is because the former has a monopoly on the use of violence, whereas the latter does not (this is reversed as soon as the latter obtains a monopoly on violence). Thus, the former is in a position to use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce a population in order to get lots of money. So... according to the above definition of terrorism, an unelected regime is committing terrorism. Therefore, it is a terrorist organization. Almost all governments that ever existed used to be terrorist organizations, from monarchies all the way to the thugs-with-clubs that ruled hunter-gatherer societies.4. No democratic election has ever been morally-sanctioned by society. Society almost never grants identified terrorist organizations any moral sanction, as shown throughout history, from the Thugees of India to the Pirates of the Caribbean. Although it has morally sanctioned monarchies and other dictators, this is due to a case of mistaken identity. Upon being identified as terrorist organizations, they would be shut down and a democratic election would be hosted by an entirely different, more peaceful group of people. Example) If a society discovered through self-reflection that it was being ruled by an extortion racket called the Mafia, they would not seek to host democratic elections in which different mafia bosses competed to run the extortion racket. They would seek to shut the Mafia down entirely and then install a democratic government, where violence and threats to intimidate or coerce would be sugar-coated as morally sanctioned majority rule; where everyone would be equally coerced under the law.5. In a "state of nature" or anarchy, society is regulated by contract. "Anarchy" is defined as: a state of society without government or law. http://dictionary.reference.com..."Contract" is defined as: an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.http://dictionary.reference.com...Note: any laws terrorists have passed before are not actually laws; they are threatening notes handed to society at the point of a gun... Hence, the society is in a "state of nature" or anarchy. Whatever rules emerge from this state of nature are the rules that the society abides by in practice. Example) if society under the Egyptian regime was governed by the rule of terrorism, most Egyptians would be dead from constant violence and threats against one another. On the other hand, it seems apparent that Egypt (and most other instances of anarchic human societies) is regulated by contract. That is, no individual has the right to use violence and threats against any peaceful individual. This is exhibited in the exchange of property seen in anarchic societies like Egypt. Property being exchanged (e.g. food shared at a religious festival) demonstrates the keeping of promises, i.e. a promise is a contract and vice versa. In the case of property, two parties make a promise to exchange goods (i.e. to forfeit property rights over the goods they are exchanging).6. Society has no external exemptions to contracts, therefore unsanctioned majority rule qualifies as terrorism. Where the actions of terrorists are correctly identified, there are no exemptions to contracts formed by adults in anarchic human societies. Examples) in the anarchic society of China: bank tellers are not allowed to force any customer to sign any contract; no one is allowed to steal directly from the rich and give to the poor; a security firm cannot use violence or threats to intimidate or coerce customers into paying for their own protection; no one can sign any contract on someone else's behalf without their explicit consent; therefore no one can agree upon a particular election host on someone else's behalf without that person's explicit consent.7. Democratic elections are validated by the use of terrorism. It is impossible to install a democratic government from an anarchic society (from which all human societies are derived) without resorting to terrorism. Example) if a single person disagreed with the majority's choice of election host and decided to host their own election, the majority would use violence and threats to prevent an alternative democratic election taking place, i.e. unsanctioned majority rule would be used to terrorize the minority. This is due to a misconception; society simply does not recognize it is anarchic, that contracts systematically take precedence when resolving disputes, and instances of unsanctioned majority rule (e.g. two men voting on whether or not to rape a woman) are systematically regarded as acts of terrorism, because they are violent and threatening acts. Thus, the majority commits terrorism when it intimidates or coerces the minority to prevent it from establishing its own democratic elections. Hence, the majority's democratic elections are validated by the use of terrorism.See Freedomainradio.com: www.freedomainradio.com