The second reason for concern is that I think that the whole fabric on which successful change in the UK political environment has been built has been the democratic process. To pout it bluntly nothing but political power secured through the ballot box has been able to challenge the power of capital. Those on the right who are open on this issue call this the tyranny of democracy. By this they mean that democracy has given a majority who own little capital the power to make claim on that capital through tax and regulation to make sure that some of it at least is used for social good.

No, that’s not what we call the tyranny of democracy.

However, pout is a pretty good description of Ritchie’s general attitudes, isn’t it?

12 thoughts on “Lovely typo”

  1. The Meissen Bison

    Does he mean “the tyranny of the majority”? The thing that dictates that the Scottish leave voters don’t to all intents and purposes exist?

    I don’t think that ‘pout’ describes the Prof’s general attitude at all well. It’s impossible to pout without being silent and he’s never silent. Perhaps he pouts when asleep, though.

  2. You’d have thought he’d have welcomed the Brexit vote then, an exercise in the people wresting power via the ballot box from big businesses who called for a Remain vote.

    Oh, sorry, that was the wrong sort of democratic vote. My bad.

  3. “For a professor of PE he really knows very little.”

    Well, yes. He knows fuck all, but believes he is omniscient.

  4. “He knows fuck all, but believes he is omniscient.”

    And, arrogantly, he’s unwilling to check anything, so he posts his confused accounts of the tyranny of the majority, Burke on representation, etc, and then deletes anyone who tries to correct him.

  5. The usual excellent comments here albeit treading old ground – however, the message cannot be reinforced enough. As Theophrastus rightly points out, one of the most objectionable things about him is he is unwilling to back down from a point once he has made it, and, when as frequently happens, it is pointed out he is wrong in factual terms he then deletes the comment or calls the person names- it’s behaviour I might expect from my cousins who are in primary school or at nursery but when it comes from someone aged over 50 it’s really at best embarrassing and at worst absolutely shameful.

    Encouragingly, his rejection of Corbyn is causing him to have to work OT on blocking Corbynistas on Twitter and his reputation amongst ‘polite society’ has taken a severe blow. It couldn’t happen to a nastier, more thuggish individual. As the saying goes ‘you reap what you sow’….

  6. It isn’t the “Tyranny of Democracy”– it is thieving arseholes voting themselves a living from other peoples money.

    Nor is it anymore acceptable at the other end of the spectrum –ie corporate socialist pukes pushing for handout “contracts” for crap like the toy train set.

  7. It isn’t the “Tyranny of Democracy”– it is thieving arseholes voting themselves a living from other peoples money.

    Quite fitting that one of the best modern examples of this has been the Greek public sector and their fellow welfare-graspers who did just that.

    Especially with how it has worked out.

  8. It’s presumably based on the following (misattributed) quote popularised during the Bush/Gore election campaign.

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

    The average age of the world’s greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

  9. When you pass ‘hate laws’ to stop public dissent.
    And then politicise the police to enforce these laws with unusual vigour.
    And then do what you know what the people don’t want you to do.
    And back it up with the full propaganda of the state eg the BBC.
    This is supposed to be democracy?

  10. “This is supposed to be democracy?”

    Could be. Depends on whether the repression of dissent is popular or not.

    A majority can vote to repress the views of a minority, and in a pure democracy they get to do so. Liberal and constitutional democracies set limits on the power of the majority to preserve certain freedoms, but as such they’re technically undemocratic.

    People often confuse “democratic” with “liberal” government, because (constitutionally limited) democracy is one of the best defences of liberal government there is, and assume therefore that authoritarian or totalitarian government must by definition be undemocratic. That’s not so.

    A lot of people in the general public have authoritarian inclinations – they only differ from one another on which policies society ought to enforce. It’s not uncommon for one authoritarian faction or another to gain a majority (or at least, a plurality) and so take control of setting policy. Many if not most people today approve of those ‘hate laws’, just as they previously approved of the often equally repressive former attitudes the current laws are designed to repress.

    People never seem to learn. Repression cuts both ways. You can’t control the way other people are allowed to live and think without giving others the power to control you in the same way. Democracy is the same. When you’re in the majority, it’s great and obviously the only valid choice. When you’re in a minority, you want limits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *