The Internet

[Edort4]

@Edort4:
I'm kind of perplexed that you see my line of reasoning as so abhorrent or aberrant when it's basically how things are done in places like the US and other even more liberal countries. For better or worse, majority does rule. Calling that a dictatorship is peculiar since that's how democracies are run for the most part.

Well I think you are mixing things up. First democracy doesnt mean majority rules. It depends heavily on the voting system and you there in USA (as in UK comes to mind those results UKIP 12,6% votes for 1 representative) you should know what I mean. First is the "majority" (this isnt always true) of the ppl who vote or can vote. States put "barriers" to voting in the way of random minimum age participation, criminal records and few other things creating a first distortion to that majority.

Then those allowed to vote may do it or not (abstention usually is the majority in all votings in the 1st world). Then depending on the voting system you can have governments with representative majority in their congress/parlaments with less than 35% of the valid votes. Thats just to explain that democracy has, a lot of time, nothing to do with majority.

Countries (not many I can think about as liberal enough to deserve that name, only Switzerland, Austria and Singapore, if you count it as a "country", come to mind) can be liberals from an economic point of view, from a social point of view, none or both. For economic liberal countries democracy is not a must (but usually helps) for social liberal countries seems to be a must. Cause it hasnt happened in any other social system so far. Then depending on the liberal "school" you have ones that see the rights as positive or negative. A liberal society based on negative rights shouldnt or couldnt allow to change those liberties no matter what any voting says cause they accept that they are innate to the human being.

And going back to the discussion. I understood you said that if the majority (what kind of all the ones I listed?) wanted to kill or ban someone they have the right to do it. Change that to the majority wants to abolish private property. The majority wants to share the means of production between all. Thats perfectly attainable through the "democracy" you portrayed. ¿Could you still call that liberal? So we can conclude that democracy=liberal isnt true at all.

Democracy is just another way of "social organization" and can perfectly become a dictartorship. South America is full of those.