2002-10-5 04:08:00
There are so many points to cover tonight that's it's difficult to decide where to start.
Thanks to high emotion, when there is a disagreement the argument usually drifts into all kinds of points that have little to do with the original premise. The discussion usually winds up giving only brief coverage to any one point and winds up with the two sides reaching an impasse not on only one thing but a wide range of topics.
We have had a wide range of topics brought up here that could keep us sidetracked for years. What I will seek to do with this post is to keep us back on track and narrow our discussions to dealing with questions concerning chapter thirteen.
A point of friction has been this statement. "Tyranny by the majority is almost nonexistent," he said. "In almost every example you can give me of tyranny there is a very small group involved who is causing it, not the majority. In the rule of the majority lies the path of safety."
Now the first problem we have is that we cannot even agree what a tyranny is. One problem with words is that many of them have ten or more different ways to use them, or ten different meanings defined in the various dictionaries.
So how do we know which of the ten, or which dictionary to use?
Do you ask the dictionary? No.
Do you ask the reader? No.
Do you ask the author, or the one using the word?
Yes, of course. The author is the only one who knows which of the ten he had in mind if there happens to be any misunderstanding.
So which definition did I use? Here it is again: Tyranny - Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly.
This was from my dictionary, but to make it crystal clear let me give you my own definition of the word so when I use it in the future there will be no need to misunderstand what I am saying.
Tyranny - A situation where absolute power is in the hands of an individual or group, and such power is cruelly used to satisfy the desires of the individual or group with no regard to the pain and suffering of the subjects who are forced to obey or suffer death, unjust imprisonment, excommunication or torture. The power of the cruelty of the tyrant is so pervasive that the majority of the people live in fear of expressing any type of opposition.
If you wish to use your own definition you, of course, have freedom to do so but, if you do, please let us know what that definition is so we can understand you. Otherwise, we will assume you are using my definition just given.
A dictionary does not just make up definitions arbitrarily, but creates the definitions from the common use among the people. If the way people use a word changes then the definitions change as new editions of dictionaries come out.
In giving the above definition what I have sought to do is define it as it is seen by the majority of the people.
Now a point has been brought up that there are abuses of power within the United States and because of this some think this country is a tyranny. Since there are abuses in all other countries in the world then this is the same as saying that every nation on the earth is a tyranny.
What is the problem with this?
Simply that it takes away the power of differentiation. It lumps the United States and Canada in the same pot as Iraq and North Korea and this lays the foundation for illusionary thinking.
The second problem is that the majority of the people do not see the more peaceable nations of the world as tyrannies. We should always define our terms so they cover a wide spectrum, not a narrow one.
Using the definition I gave (as well as most dictionary definitions), the United States, as a whole, is not a tyranny?
Why
(1) In this country we still have checks and balances and no one person or group has absolute power.
(2) No one person or group cruelly exercises his will over the majority.
(3) The majority feel free to express their thoughts and reasonable dissent with the powers-that-be. Of course those who break the law do not want to talk openly about their thoughts and actions, but laws and lawbreakers are everywhere and do not constitute as tyranny.
The problem with lumping the United States in the same tyrannical category as North Korea or Iraq it takes two very different governing situations and making them appear to be equal or the same, and they are not. Why anyone would want to use the same word in talking about Iraq and the United States seems very strange and founded in misunderstanding. It also gives the appearance of a conscious attempt at distortion.
So how about tyrannies within the United States and other free countries? Do they exist? Yes, of course, and some have attempted to point some of them out. A powerful cult or religion can be a tyranny over its members. The mob is a tyranny over its group as well as many gangs. The head of a household can tyrannize the whole family and seek to control all aspects of their lives. Many other examples can be given. But does the fact that there are perhaps thousands of tyrannical situations within the United States mean that the country as a whole is a tyranny?
No.
Does the fact that there are some unjust laws passed by a minority with some law enforcement zealously carrying them out on a very small percentage of citizens mean that the country as a whole is a tyranny?
Of course not.
This is basic reasoning and hope we can shortly see eye to eye on this simple point. So I can use the word "tyranny" without constantly explaining myself.
If there is any further need for additional clarification of my use of the word, please make clear the clarification needed and I'll see what I can do.
Copyright 2002 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved