The Effect of Tyranny

2002-10-4 06:11:00

Larry writes,
Just for reference, let me once more repeat that which I quoted earlier:

"Tyranny by the majority is almost non existent," 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."

I have a problem with you stating that the above is _clearly_ only a statement about the "present time in the free world." From the context of the chapter it is clear that principles are being discussed and not just principles that obviously only apply to the present time. It would also seem to me that there is at least one clearly discernible principle embedded in this statement by John in Chapter Thirteen - a principle that most certainly does not apply to just the present time.

JJ
You are right, it is a principle but the quote was referring to present time in the free world. The reason the wording IS was used is that if we used past standards and primitive cultures in examining this principle it would seem to be incorrect. This is why the discussion went into the issue of slavery in ancient times and shows how it generally wasn't considered tyranny back then and Jesus did not even speak out against it, but used the example of "good and faithful slaves" in many of his teachings.

On the other hand, in a future time many of the things we think to be acceptable today may seem to be a tyranny to the people of the future and the majority of these people of the future will be against tyranny, however it was defined.

Larry
Do you see what that principle is?

JJ
Actually, the principle is elaborated quite clearly in the book of Mormon as follows: "Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord."

"Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law--to do your business by the voice of the people."

"And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land." Mosiah 29:25-27

Larry then cites abuses in the war against drugs such as looking for large exchanges of cash with suspicion and in some cases seizing it from innocent people.

Then Larry says:
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).

JJ
First, that which is passed by our representatives does not necessarily reflect the will of the majority. This is why I wrote the treatise on Molecular Politics, to present a plan where the will of the people can be more accurately reflected by them. You, yourself expressed the opinion that representatives went contrary to the will of the people in their civil rights votes in the Sixties.

Those laws which are widely known and debated often reflect the will of the people, but there are numerous pieces of legislation passed that many Congress people are unaware of, let alone the people. The will of the people basically support the war on drugs, but there are certain aspects of it that are not well known as you point out that the will of the people may not support.

This type of example though does not a tyranny make. There are abuses in all countries and even in this country clear from its beginnings there have been abuses like you cite. Are we to say that we have lived in a tyrannical country since its beginning? If the United States is a tyranny then why would only a very few call it so?

The vast majority would not call the United States, Canada, France England or many other nations' tyrannies for this reason. When we think tyranny, as most people understand it, we think of a society where the oppression is great enough to touch every person who lives there and cause him to live in fear of unjust authority to some extent.

Take me and my wife, for example. We are both in our fifties and not once have either one of us in all these decades had even one experience with tyranny of the state. I've never worried about authorities unjustly seizing my cash, banging on my door because of my strange beliefs... I have never had to concern myself with the restriction of speech because of the state. I had a problem with the church in this, but not the state. Basically, we like most of the people we know, live our life without fear of these things while being vigilant to do our part to see that these freedoms remain.

Believe me, if I were to live in a tyrannical regime, a controversial person like me would have to go underground and perhaps live in hiding.

A tyrannical country would have to have a degree of oppression that would make the majority live in fear of the state and that is not the case here. Some live in fear, but the majority do not live in any degree of fear as is the case of a true tyranny.

Overall tyranny is a matter of degree. The best of the nations have their imperfections and all have individuals and groups with tyrannical minds, but overall these more civilized nations cold be called flawed nations seeking to find their soul.

Larry
Restricting ourselves to the present time, but not limiting ourselves geographically, how about Islamic countries where a majority of Moslems strongly support tyrannical laws that limit individual freedom in numerous and obvious ways? How about countries in Africa where one tribe is a majority and controls the political machinery of the country (and sometimes slaughters members of minority tribes)? It may be true that in many of these countries that political power is closely held by a small minority, but at the same time it would appear the majority strongly supports them.

JJ
What we consider tyranny others may not. Again remember the example cited of slavery in ancient days. Some people live in tyrannical regimes and are indoctrinated to a degree that they think they are living in the best country in the world and are happy to defend it. Most residents of tyrannical regimes are not as supportive as it seems. I just heard an Iraqi person, who was close to Saddam, interviewed on TV and he said that there will be dancing in the streets when we overthrow Saddam. He believes that even the tough Republican Guard will be overjoyed to lose the war.