Debate Info

Debate Score:18
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 YES (7)
 NO (4)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11170) pic

Is Democracy a form of soft tyranny or despotism?



Side Score: 12


Side Score: 6

Soft despotism is an illusion where people actually believe that they are in control, but in reality, the people have very little influence over their government, and control is really in the hands of the elite political class akin to the Kennedy family.

Democracy is capable of breeding deposition because it resembles parental authority and keeps some people in perpetual childhood and takes out the trouble of thinking and taking care of one's self.

Citizens vote for the political elite, and those politicians promise to use the state to give them whatever they want. Soft despotism is the voluntary surrender of liberty to look for the needs of the state.

Side: YES

Do you know Alexis de Tocqueville? If not, you should read a translation of his novel Democratie en Amerique. He explains how democracy in the US is a soft form of tyranny. What is incredible about the novel is that it was able to accurately describe how the US government is today even though the US government at the time of Tocqueville was being built.

Side: YES

Yes, I know of the book by Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America but I have not read it. Democracy: The God That Failed Us is good as well by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Side: YES
2 points

It depends on the specific form of "democracy", modern usage of the term denotes a republic, not actual democracy. Bourgeoisie democracy, which are most of today "democratic" governments are nothing more than the rule of elites, where either the choices of candidates are restricted to only supporters of elites or the election system is rigged to give an advantage to such supporters.

Side: YES
1 point

Yes. Democracy is the violent infliction of laws against the minority. By voting, a person is trying to get their opinion inflicted on the rest of people in their society.

In a democracy the laws are supposed to reflect the majority of what people want. If the majority of people want something, they don't need to be forced to do it. And if the majority doesn't want something, it wouldn't become law. So why do we need government again? Governments are just people, and no group of people has the right to violently inflict others to live how they think they should.

Side: YES
1 point

I very much like the quote, and that being said, i believe that our government is becoming more tyranny each day... It is obvious that the people are ran by the government, and not the other way around. I've seen guys come and go that promise change, but all in all most fail to do the changes they promised... our government is going nuts.

Side: YES

I will opt for soft tyranny. Democracy has its flaws but it is much better than a dictatorship.

Side: YES
2 points

Democracy, in its base form, is unrestrained rule by the majority. Neither tyranny nor despotism fit into this model.

Obviously, you can find something that you could call democracy, yet is a form of tyranny, or despotism. However, this is not 'democracy', it is a bastardized similarity. It is also possible that democracy can turn into tyranny or despotism, but again, that would no longer be democracy.

Side: NO

Most forms of government I've encountered sound good on paper, but often once the human element is mixed in they end up tyrannical or similar. Dictatorships, for example, could be fine if the dictator was a really good guy, but that's rarely ever the case.

Side: NO

There is no perfect form of government, that is the simplest answer. Same with economic systems. They all have great ideals, they just don't really work in practice.

And yeah, Plato talked about his lovely old philosopher king idea, which is nice, and with a proper selection program, could work for even hundreds of years, but giving any one person absolute authority can never work in the long term.

Side: NO
2 points

This is like asking if communism is equal to totalitarianism. It's not, and democracy is not, by definition, tyranny.

Now, if you ask if some governments construed as democratic are not actually democratic and are actually tyrannical? I'd say yes, that is possible. But that's not the question stated.

Democracy is meant to represent the populace. Tyranny is not. Whether or not democracy fails is not the issue. The question is of definition, and since that is the case, the answer is no.

Is democracy capable of actually committing tyrannical things? Well... no, because if it did, then it's not true democracy.

This question answers itself.

Side: NO