Democracy

Rejoinder #1 "My math from earlier refuted this. " No, It did not. Not only were your numbers arbitrary but also those numbers failed to delineate the significance of your premise, Which was the division of power. And even when I entertained your abstract arithmetic, Your rationale was subverted by the fact that democratic power is centralized to few representatives, Not the people who engage a political ceremony once every 4-6 years. "Unless you can propose a system that divides the power better, Then this argument falls. " No, Not in the slightest. The subject of this debate isn't "There are better systems than democracy" or "Which systems divide power better than democracy? " The subject of this debate is "Democracy. " It is your onus is to make a case for democracy and it is my onus to make a case against democracy. I've already indicated the premises on which I base my criticisms. I need only substantiate them to make my point (and I've done so. ) I'm in no way, Shape, Or form obligated to your false dilemmas, Your fallacies of relative privation, And your arguments from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium. ) "You say that division of power doesn't matter, But that is the whole point of the system, " I've never stated that the division of power does not matter. I questioned you on its significance since you brought it up, And you offered no substance to the argument; only a mere statement and arbitrary arithmetic. If in fact democracy serves no moral economy, Then what is the significance in dividing power? Theories of democracy whether it be from Pericles to Aristotle to Schumpeter would argue a fundamental moral basis to the formation of democracies whether consistently sustained or not. You argue otherwise. And you've provided no substantial reason. "So if you want to die on that hill then we'll have to change the name of this topic to 'blah blah blah'" Stay on topic. This isn't about me or the proverbial hills on which I "wish to die. " Rejoinder #2 "There are ways to give voices to minorities and America is a great example of this. " My criticism does not mention "minorities. " It mentions specifically, "dissenters. " "There is nothing about majority rule that is immoral, Only the actions taken by representatives are immoral. " You stated above that there are ways to give voice to a demographic I did not mention and you don't go on to explain. And is it your argument that only the representatives have the capacity for immorality? Wouldn't this by extension mean that the "will of the people" can be immoral? And if this immorality is an aberration, Wouldn't that then indicate that representatives do not necessarily represent the "will of the people? " Majority rule, As I described above, Necessitates the coercion of minorities into service of its policies because it requires their resources. If majority rule gave discretion to dissenters to determine the ends in which their labor, Property, Other assets and resources serve, There'd be no such thing as non-compliance laws which indicate tort or crime; all decisions on policy would be unanimous; there'd be no taxation, The refusal of which can result in one's death--non compliance can be met with the discretion of armed officers to exercise deadly force. The use of intimidation, And threats of agression/violence/force/harm to compel behavior or place someone under duress is immoral. And duress codifies all policy arguments in democracy. Furthermore, Democracy is illogical because Murray Rothbard pointed out, Democracy as of consequence of its logical extension could allow for the election of dictators who'd end all election, Or solicit the emergence of restrictions on majority rule, Subverting the very basis of democracy. Not to mention, Since democracy is based on majority rule, All policy arguments by extension suffer form argumentum ad populum, A logical fallacy which denotes the veracity or validity of a claim to be a function of its popularity. WrickItWrap, you've debunked nothing. On to closing arguments.