I am the tyranny, so... none.
But seriously, I ignore rules that I don't agree with.So... none. Oppression happens in your mind not the perpetrator. That is why some people can be brought to their knees with a few words while others can live free in a prison cell.
Topic: What level of tyranny will you live under ? - page 2. (Read 3787 times)
Actually, it's the exact amount the majority of other people are willing to put up with. Which wouldn't be so bad but for the fact that the majority of other people just don't give a damn about their freedom. 
*sigh*... this 
Tyranny is such a strong word. The more people you cram into a state (ahem, CA) the more "tyranny" youre going to need. Less elbow room, less resources, less privacy for everyone simply because theres so many people trying to get along with each other, so more regulation of what you can and can't do. By contrast lets head over to North Dakota where there is miles and miles of nothing and no one. Who is gonna care if you do 90 mph down an empty highway, or light some firecrackers, or build a 25 ft tall wind turbine? Who is around to even notice? I guess my point is: population density leads to "tyranny", and it might actually be necessary to force everyone to get along.
So a 7? 
Tyranny is such a strong word. The more people you cram into a state (ahem, CA) the more "tyranny" youre going to need. Less elbow room, less resources, less privacy for everyone simply because theres so many people trying to get along with each other, so more regulation of what you can and can't do. By contrast lets head over to North Dakota where there is miles and miles of nothing and no one. Who is gonna care if you do 90 mph down an empty highway, or light some firecrackers, or build a 25 ft tall wind turbine? Who is around to even notice? I guess my point is: population density leads to "tyranny", and it might actually be necessary to force everyone to get along.
I'm willing to live under the "Tyranny of the Majority" (direct democracy), but only if it's limited by a constitution. It was actually a factor in my decision to move to California.
Every time I say this, some wise guy reponds "Direct democracy in California is terrible! What about gay rights? Nice budget you got there lolz!" so I'll respond preemptively. Yes, it has its flaws, but it's a step in the right direction. DD allows legislation that doesn't already have a big supporting corporation to get passed, like medical cannabis. Ideally I'd prefer to do away with elected representatives entirely, replacing them with futarchy and delegated voting.
And yes, I would still prefer EVEN LESS tyranny than democracy, but majority rule is the worst I will tolerate for now. No "Tyranny of the Minority" for me, thank you - that rules out the corporatism brought about by a purely representative democracy. I demand an actual say, not filtered through some Republocrat slimeball.
Every time I say this, some wise guy reponds "Direct democracy in California is terrible! What about gay rights? Nice budget you got there lolz!" so I'll respond preemptively. Yes, it has its flaws, but it's a step in the right direction. DD allows legislation that doesn't already have a big supporting corporation to get passed, like medical cannabis. Ideally I'd prefer to do away with elected representatives entirely, replacing them with futarchy and delegated voting.
And yes, I would still prefer EVEN LESS tyranny than democracy, but majority rule is the worst I will tolerate for now. No "Tyranny of the Minority" for me, thank you - that rules out the corporatism brought about by a purely representative democracy. I demand an actual say, not filtered through some Republocrat slimeball.
Actually, it's the exact amount the majority of other people are willing to put up with. Which wouldn't be so bad but for the fact that the majority of other people just don't give a damn about their freedom.
It's 42, right?
7
the exact amount you are willing to put up with.
Jump to: