The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:21 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 3:30 pm
How about you just answer the question, instead of melting down, Gary. And the question is, "What do you mean by 'democracy'?"

Democracy is rule by the people.

Sort of. But how is it done, in your view? One citizen, one vote? Or some other way?

However, if the people can't make reasonable choices,

"Reasonable" by whom? Who gets to decide that more than half of their fellow citizens are being "unreasonable" in their choice, and how does he make that determination?

...it's supposed to prevent tyranny better than any of the other alternatives known to humanity.

What's your evidence that there's "tyranny" in America right now?

Democracy is rule by the people. The particulars are whatever best facilitate that definition. If you have a better definition of what democracy is then let's hear it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:17 pm As you know, there are eight cups prescribed. Even over an all-night program, on very little food one must pace oneself very carefully.

Well ..... there are FOUR cups prescribed (you are allowed more). Nor does it have to be a cloying sweet one like Manishevitz. The very little food surprises me. The Seder starts with little bits of this and that, but after the 1st two cups, the matzah, and the bitter herb NORMALLY a full meal. Generally a big feast. After that, eat the afekomen (ceremonial "desert") and the final two cups of wine during the grace after meals << a full traditional grace after meals is long >>

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:21 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:18 pm ...it's supposed to prevent tyranny better than any of the other alternatives known to humanity.

What's your evidence that there's "tyranny" in America right now?

Trump has started an extremely dangerous war that no one wants, that didn't need to be started and without congress's (the people's) approval. That's tyranny. Do you not consider it tyranny?

Don't forget ...

Using the DOJ to go after his enemies.

Tariffs without congressional approval.

Threats to exit NATO without congressional approval.

Blowing up alleged drug boats without due process.

Kidnapping a head of state.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:42 pm Don't forget ...

Using the DOJ to go after his enemies.

Tariffs without congressional approval.

Threats to exit NATO without congressional approval.

Blowing up alleged drug boats without due process.

Kidnapping a head of state.

Yes. There are plenty of examples under Trump, including draconian measures against unlawful migrants that humane citizens are protesting.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:37 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:21 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:18 pm ...it's supposed to prevent tyranny better than any of the other alternatives known to humanity.

What's your evidence that there's "tyranny" in America right now?

Trump has started an extremely dangerous war that no one wants,

Well, some people do, obviously. And declaring war's within the Presidential powers, I believe. In fact, one of his offices is called "commander-in-chief," is it not?

I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the war. I'm just asking for evidence he's somehow exceeded his constitutional powers and become a "tyrant." To my knowledge, he hasn't...whether we agree or disagree with his decision.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:46 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:37 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:21 pm
What's your evidence that there's "tyranny" in America right now?

Trump has started an extremely dangerous war that no one wants,

Well, some people do, obviously. And declaring war's within the Presidential powers, I believe. In fact, one of his offices is called "commander-in-chief," is it not?

I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the war. I'm just asking for evidence he's somehow exceeded his constitutional powers and become a "tyrant." To my knowledge, he hasn't...whether we agree or disagree with his decision.

A president is not authorized to declare war. Giving the president authorization to initiate hostilities on his own (presumably, not the same as war) was a horrible mistake. That should be obvious to anyone with a conscience.

And declaring war's within the Presidential powers, I believe.

AI Overview
No, the U.S. President cannot formally declare war. Under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, that power is explicitly reserved for Congress. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, only Congress can officially declare war and control funding for military efforts, though presidents frequently use the military for actions not formally declared as war.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:46 pm Yes. There are plenty of examples under Trump, including draconian measures against unlawful migrants that humane citizens are protesting.

Ummm...no. "Unlawful" migrants have no guarantees under the American constitution. And border security is another presidential power. Did you object equally strenuously when Biden used exactly the same mechanisms to open the border? Why not, if this is supposed to be a case of abuse of power?

I'm not seeing any "failure of democracy," Gary. Just an admin you don't like.

And I get it. I've lived in a country which has been ruled by truly wretched administrations -- actually much less competent, and employing much more "draconian" measures than anything you've experienced...truly awful. But I never accused that government of failing to have been elected by democratic mandate, or to be the temporarily-legit government of my country, just because at least half of the people in my country voted badly.

So why do you? I'm going to need some evidence of "undemocratic" there.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:49 pm

And declaring war's within the Presidential powers, I believe.

AI Overview
No, the U.S. President cannot formally declare war. Under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, that power is explicitly reserved for Congress. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, only Congress can officially declare war and control funding for military efforts, though presidents frequently use the military for actions not formally declared as war.

This is interesting. What sort of "actions"? Do you know?

Does this one deserve to be called a "war," or is it merely a "military action"?

Can you say "special military operation"?

I knew you could.

Did you learn it from Putin?

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:56 pm Can you say "special military operation"?

Is this what you believe it to be? A "special military operation"? I'm not familiar with US terms on that, so I'm sincerely asking.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:51 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:46 pm Yes. There are plenty of examples under Trump, including draconian measures against unlawful migrants that humane citizens are protesting.

Ummm...no. "Unlawful" migrants have no guarantees under the American constitution. And border security is another presidential power. Did you object equally strenuously when Biden used exactly the same mechanisms to open the border? Why not, if this is supposed to be a case of abuse of power?

I'm not seeing any "failure of democracy," Gary. Just an admin you don't like.

And I get it. I've lived in a country which has been ruled by truly wretched administrations -- actually much less competent, and employing much more "draconian" measures than anything you've experienced...truly awful. But I never accused that government of failing to have been elected by democratic mandate, or to be the temporarily-legit government of my country, just because at least half of the people in my country voted badly.

So why do you? I'm going to need some evidence of "undemocratic" there.

No, Imanuel, the US is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. EVERY HUMAN BEING has rights to due process and fair treatment by a government that signed the declaration. That is a human right that is sacred to anyone who signs the UDHR. Albeit, the "right" wants to roll back those rights, no surprise there. If there's a way to be an inhuman ass, then the "right" will find it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:59 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:56 pm Can you say "special military operation"?

Is this what you believe it to be? A "special military operation"? I'm not familiar with US terms on that, so I'm sincerely asking.

Clearly IC isn't able to make moral determinations on his own, unless it involves "socialists".

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:59 pm EVERY HUMAN BEING has rights to due process and fair treatment by the government.

"Fair"? What is "fair" for what you call an "unlawful" foreign invader? What "process" is due to somebody who invades your country, in an "unlawful" way?

I think incarceration, followed by deportation, is really a good deal. It's certainly proportional, humane and deserved. Some countries, like Socialist ones, traditionally just shoot border-jumpers.

the UDHR.

Has nothing to it. Nobody can explain what legitimizes anything the UN decides, let alone a claim to "human rights." The UN itself, too, has been pretty awful on living up to its own demands.

Okay, Gary...let's make this simple by making it unfettered by US particulars.

You're in a democratic country, let's say. Let's say it's not the US. You're in Canada, or Australia, or Holland...you pick it.
There are two political parties in the country. Let's call them X and Y. Or three, if you like: X, Y and Z.
Y is elected by a majority of over 50%, in an open election.
What makes Y's election "undemocratic"?