The essence of Democracy is not that the majority wins. The essence of democracy and other representational systems (such as the variant on democracy we actually have) is that when processes are followed and the vote is fair, the losers agree to go gracefully and wait for the next vote for their next chance at victory. The winners don't need to be told they won; they know it. It's getting the losers to go gracefully via proxy violence rather than actual violence that is the key to civilization as we know it.
This is the losers not going gracefully. (Or at least, the likely losers. Actually democracy has not yet made its decision, it's still deliberating on the matter of jurisdiction, let alone the actual crime at hand.) This is the breakdown of democracy, not a celebration of it. I won't even immediately leap to saying that's a bad thing, because Democracy !=== "Good". I'm just saying, this is not democracy. It's either anarchy or mob rule.
And if you actually like democracy, raw or otherwise, you shouldn't agree with Anonymous. A democracy is all about means rather than ends, and as tempting as it may be to agree with the end it is imperative to the integrity of the system that you stand against someone getting there with the wrong means. If you don't like Sony, boycott, legislate, lobby, convince with words and fair deeds, not mob criminality.
I think democracy gets conflated with justice too many times. There is absolutely nothing good or bad about democracy....it is merely a way of representation and governance.
The real question should be about justice. What is actually right and wrong? It does not matter if the people being denied a voice are a majority or minority...the only thing that matters is what they have to say, and if it has merit.
51% rule does not work if 49% pick up the guns when they lose and start shooting. If you are fortunate enough to live in a well-civilized country, you are fortunate enough to live in a society that has internalized the fact that it's ultimately not good for anybody to do that. A casual glance around the world will show how not-inevitable that is. It's not two different definitions; it's the engineering mechanics whereby "majority rule" actually works, actually occurs, instead of... something else. (Multiple different sorts of something elses... I don't mean that I have one particular one in mind. But presumably some sort of something else that doesn't involve majority rule.)
If that 49% never 'wins', they have absolutely no incentive to continue their union with the 51% majority. It would make no sense for them to do so - why always stick around the with the husband who beats you?
Sure, it's not thrown down time after the first defeat, but when every single issue time and time again comes down to such a huge split, when does it make sense to just end it and have the 2 groups separate?
That's an excellent point well made. The logic of democracy is trumped by the logic of real life.
However, in this issue I don't think we're talking about a 49-51% split. This is a very powerful minority imposing their will of a largely silent majority. Your logic still stands though: At what point do we break our union. Anonymous's action indicate to me that we may well have reached that point.
while we're sat here debating the subtleties and semantics of what "democracy" means, Anonymous is out there being the change they want to see in the world. Anonymous are better democrats than I.
To criticise exclusively "the means" of Anonymous in this sense is to close your eyes to the other sides "means". Things like lobbying, spreading democracy through war, nepotism, and simply ignoring constitutions altogether to do what ever the hell you want. All of which are privileges you and I don't have. Your vote will not change that. You can march on washington (or London (or anywhere) as they did against the Iraq War, Student Fees and Austerity Cuts) and you will not change a thing.
The banks have taken all our money, but while you pay full income Tax, Barclays Bank pays 1% corporation tax. Monsanto poison our food and use their power to make what was illegal yesterday, legal today. Pharmaceutical companies fudge trials or re-market pills and potions in a way that they know will harm people, but no one will ever go to jail for manslaughter or murder or bodily harm.
I've yet to see a better advancement for democracy in my lifetime than the Low Orbit Ion Cannon. It only works when we all pull the trigger together, which is a safety feature no other kind of democracy has.
I counter that organizations like Sony have already so subverted our democracy that this entire point is moot. The laws that allow them to do what they do were not enacted in a democratic fashion. And to be honest I'm more concerned with the ends than the means anyway, finally. Democratic ideals are something everyone should strive toward to be sure, but things have perhaps degraded to the point that they need to be set aside in the short term.
"The laws that allow them to do what they do were not enacted in a democratic fashion."
Which laws specifically have been passed by Congress despite the fact that, say, 60%+ of the people would greatly disagree with it, and empower Sony to do these things?
I consider the DMCA a great mistake. I've spent way more time than the average Internet denizen thinking so, thinking about it, writing about it [1]. I have some very refined opinions on how bad an idea it is.
I do not delude myself into thinking that I have the support of the people.
Most people don't care, shading into supporting the basic functionality of the DMCA, at least come vote time. Sorry. It's the truth. It has even perhaps been passed via some dubious methods, but, again, certainly not above the will of the people.
I think a lot of people use "subverted Democracy" as a code word for "enacted something I don't like". But that's not a subversion of democracy; that's when you enact something a lot of people don't like.
Yes, there's a time and a place for writing the system off and taking justice into your own hands. This isn't even close to it. That's not something to be taken lightly.
Are you sure the DMCA was enacted democratically? That it was passed by Congress isn't strong evidence for that.
To be honest we're probably not going to find much common ground here. I don't consider America a democratic nation, or at least not an example of one to strive toward. But I think I can distinguish between "subverted Democracy" and "enacted something I don't like."
This is the losers not going gracefully. (Or at least, the likely losers. Actually democracy has not yet made its decision, it's still deliberating on the matter of jurisdiction, let alone the actual crime at hand.) This is the breakdown of democracy, not a celebration of it. I won't even immediately leap to saying that's a bad thing, because Democracy !=== "Good". I'm just saying, this is not democracy. It's either anarchy or mob rule.
And if you actually like democracy, raw or otherwise, you shouldn't agree with Anonymous. A democracy is all about means rather than ends, and as tempting as it may be to agree with the end it is imperative to the integrity of the system that you stand against someone getting there with the wrong means. If you don't like Sony, boycott, legislate, lobby, convince with words and fair deeds, not mob criminality.