2002-10-7 16:07:00
JJ:
Conclusion One: When I write to the group and any of the writings come under question and a definition of words or terms is necessary, I should be the one to define them and that definition should be consistently used if understanding and correct communication is to be realized. This same principle applies to any writer who initiates a topic that comes under fire.
Question to the group, particularly Larry, Blayne, Travis and Susan. Do you agree with the above conclusion? If not, why?
Blayne:
Yes I agree and I think once you clarified your definition no one really disagreed after that but you perceived we did.
JJ
This is why I am asking this question. There has been so much disagreement with me about my writings on tyranny that runs contrary to the way I defined it, without clarifying their own meaning, that I was not sure if some accepted how I was using the word in my own writings.
Blayne
By the same token some of us have used the word tyranny in a broader definition than you're using, to describe lost freedoms and you have taken issue with that. And we have made a distinction between "full blown tyranny" and "lesser tyranny" to acknowledge the distinction with your definition but you still seem to take issue with that and not want us to use the word tyranny outside your definition even when we are describing current government abuse. I don't think this is fair. Because we use the term in a broader sense you feel we're not understanding you.
JJ
By my definition either a greater or lesser tyranny is a tyranny. It appears that what many people call injustices, you call tyrannies and this is why we all need to use the same definition to avoid confusion.
Blayne
We are understanding you, but we will use the term in a broader definition to describe a pattern of increasing government oppression. I don't see anything wrong with that.
JJ
If we use two definitions then we will not be able to communicate and resolve this. This is like using Alice A. Bailey's and Course in Miracles opposing definitions of ego within the same argument.
It is like me telling someone "I make signs" and them using a definition for it that makes them think I am talking about sign language. There is no way to communicate without illusion when two people use different definitions within the same argument.
I would be prepared to use your definition but then I would have to rewrite chapter thirteen to be able to effectively talk about it and I think this would be a waste of time since I believe the definition I gave fits very well with the way the media and the man on the street understand the word - as well as what I was attempting to say in the book.
This two definition thing creates a major problem with continuing this discussion and I do not see how to effectively proceed and understand each other.
JJ Quote:
Amazingly, we have also had different uses of the word majority.
When I speak or write about the majority I refer to a group which is over 50% of the people, group or nation under discussion. Let us say there are 200 million people in the United States capable of forming an opinion on a matter. In this case a majority would be 100,000,001 or more.
Now the past few days several have used this word in other ways such as saying that the majority of legislators are the same as the majority of people of the nation because they represent us.
Blayne :
This is not true and this is one example of you arguing with something that was not said. What I said was in reference to "SOME" quotes you posted by Jefferson that perhaps Jefferson's context was not as you portrayed concerning the majority.
JJ
It is true. Here is a quote from Larry: "The Congress has passed laws that encourage police to use their own judgment and seize property when they think it is involved in certain crimes (drugs being the most common, but not necessarily the only one). Since these laws have come out it is the case that some departments in larger cities are actually budgeting a certain amount of "income" from property seizure. Look in the classified ads of your paper on a regular basis for notices of auctions of seized goods (often a lot of cars, and boats, but also almost just about anything imaginable these days).
"It is not the case that the definition of tyranny here is being "watered down", and it is not the case that these are only abuses by rogue cops. It is the law of the land and police forces ARE ONLY IMPLEMENTING WHAT THE MAJORITY HAS IMPLICITLY CONDONED IT TO DO (IMPLICITLY THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES FREELY ELECTED)."
Larry was using this point in refuting the statement that "the tyranny by the majority is almost nonexistent." The point he was making was that these laws enacted by Congress and the injustices therefrom reflect the majority. I do not think it does.
The majority of legislators are more than half of the legislators and that is all. They do not necessarily reflect the majority of the people. Instead of listening to the majority (as I wrote in Molecular Politics) they often listen to minority special interests, trade vote, sell votes etc."
Quite often I have seen initiatives put forward and approved by the majority of the people and then these initiatives are blocked or negated by legislators who disagree with them. This illustrates that elected representatives do not accurately reflect the majority of the people.
Blayne
And see you have gone into a large argument against something that was never said or never brought up as an issue. I think we all agree the legislature often does no reflect the majority will of the people. And I don't think you can give an example of one of us bringing this up as an issue or point of disagreement.
JJ
I just did by quoting Larry. There may be more but there is a vast amount of material we have written to dig into.
Blayne
But it does take a vote among the majority of legislatures to subvert the will of the people...
And we have brought this up as evidence that the Majority is being manipulated and or subverted to support the conclusion that there is not always safety in the majority.
JJ
I agree. But this is not what is meant by "safety in the majority." I have been trying to find time to write about this but have been sidetracked defending myself.
The responses to my post since Chapter Thirteen have been about 80% against me. If I was into the safety of the majority, as some are thinking of it, then I would have thrown up my hands and cried "Uncle" some time ago.
Conclusion Two: The majority as I use it in my writings refers to more than half of the people group of nation that is or will be under discussion.
Blayne
I don't think you can find an example of anyone disagreeing with this.
JJ
Then there is a third simple word causing problems in the problem phrase: "Tyranny by the majority is almost non existent." What is that word? "IS" is the word. Unlike Bill Clinton, I know what IS is. IS refers to present time, yet many examples of tyranny have been brought up from the past to refute the phrase. It was pointed out that this phrase may have been referring to a principle and therefore past present and future applies. It does to a degree but what is seen as tyranny today often was not seen as tyranny in the past. This was the reason for explaining why teachers such as Jesus and Paul did not speak against it. Because the meaning of tyranny shifts as consciousness evolves over time the phrase was meant to apply to present time to avoid confusion.
Blayne
Again I don't think anyone has missed the distinction. We are having a protracted discussion on increasing tyranny or abuse since the 60's to the present.
I have mentioned several times now in previous posts that we agree with you ideal of working within the majority.
What seems to be the major disagreement here is not us not understanding your definition but that you insinuate that it is always safe to go along with the majority because they are not disposed to allow a Hitler type tyrannical leadership. Several of us have pointed out examples of the majority supporting oppression in the present and in Hitler's day. You seem to acknowledge that it is because of manipulative control and or ignorance to the problems. Several of us have asked you "why" we should agree there is safety in such a situation and if you responded I do not recall?
JJ
As I said, I would have clarified this some time ago, but we have drifted off on many other issues. I hope to rectify this soon. Then you can respond to what I do think rather than what I seem to think.
Blayne
Does it really matter how the majority support it? Either because of ignorance, manipulation or directly with clear knowledge of their choice. There is a clear and present danger regardless!
JJ
If the majority supports a thing because they are deceived then they do not really support it, do they?
Suppose my Congressman says he is fighting for lower taxes and I support and vote from him. But it turns out he lied to me and fights for higher taxes. Does this mean that if the majority are deceived like me that we support higher taxes?
Of Course not.
Blayne
I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD DISAGREE THAT IF THE MAJORITY HAD A CLEAR INFORMED CHOICE THEY WOULD NOT CHOOSE TYRANNY IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD.
JJ
Then what are we arguing about??? This has been my point from the beginning. This makes the statement true which is: "Tyranny by the majority is almost nonexistent."
I hope the others feel this way, then perhaps we can move on.
Blayne
Conclusion three: If one wants to refute the said statement one must speak of tyrannies occurring in present time. I do not see how this can be a matter of debate, but it has been.
We have pointed out several. Here is the difference. According to your definition of tyranny, we have all agreed there is none of the magnitude of Hitler. But there are several in the world like Saddam, and Communist China, N. Korea etc. So essentially we have agreed with you but you take issue with us pointing out lesser tyrannies even though some would fit into your definition.
Then we have used a broader definition to describe trends in that direction. Such as Americas trend toward an authoritarian state, which you seem to dismiss.
It is only logical to conclude that any government with continued and increasing oppressiveness to its citizens no matter how subtle is a target for the dark brotherhood to use as a major outlet to manifest a greater tyranny when the opportunity is ripe. But is also being currently used by them to continue the trend to a point of greater manifestation.
We have pointed out the lower profile of this increasing tyranny. It also stands to reason that since the Dark Brotherhood failed in the end with Hitler they would learn from their mistakes and try to make any future tyranny less visible and more subtle so much so that it dupes the majority into thinking actually thinking it is good. And by increasing the comfort level and decreasing visibility we have a more insidious slow manifestation of the dark brotherhood agenda.
Also with a higher consciousness among a larger minority of people and an awareness of Hitler and Stalin's debacles etc. it is increasingly difficult for them to foist their agenda on people. So they must work extra hard to conceal their agenda.
Logic also dictates that since higher consciousness is still only among a minority that there is little safety in always going along with the majority except to keep from nullifying effectiveness in initiating change.
Can you point out any flaws in this logic?
JJ
I am trying to proceed one point at a time and will be commenting on this later. If I forget please bring it up again.
The question to answer here is do you accept conclusion three, that the controversial statement refers to present time and agree that we must stay in present time if one is to argue against it? It also refers to the general civilized world as we understand it and was not meant to include primitive tribes and groups.
I am attempting to establish points of agreement in sequence so we can eventually understand each other and hopefully agree.
Blayne
"A fourth word of importance that seems to have been overlooked is the word "almost." This tells us that there could be exceptions. I do not know of any, but if only several tyrannies of the majority are found then the statement is still true. It was not a black and white statement where there would be no exceptions."
Then why do you keep asking us where is the leader of the Hitler for the current time?
JJ
It is rare to have the creation of a tyranny without a strong cruel leader - like Hitler, Stalin, Castro etc. It may be sustained by acolytes, but usually created by Hitler types.
Conclusion four: Out of the many tyrannies there could be a small number of exceptions and the statement could still be true.
Blayne
I am not sure what you mean here? You seem to acknowledge several tyrannies now?
JJ
I'm not mentioning or acknowledging specific exceptions here - although they could exist.
I think the meaning is clear. "Tyranny by the majority is almost nonexistent,"
The word "almost" implies there could be an exception now and then.
The question then remains. Can you support the idea that this controversial statement would be true, even though there may be a few exceptions???
In other words, if it is true most of the time with a few exceptions then we can cease arguing about its validity.
Thank you for your comments. Now if you can clarify your position as to whether or not you accept the last two conclusions and if we can accept a definition for tyranny then we can proceed with some understanding and not so much confusion.
"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332
Copyright 2002 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved