Nostr is hotter than my forecast today. 🔥🔥🔥

Excuse what brand is that?

Excuse what brand is that?

OK, fair enough. The US government is responsible for ~11 million dead civilians in the middle east, and we have continuously voted for it.

Sure, and Hitler was democratically elected. Has the introduction of democratic elements made China a country more free than the time of dynasties?

Yeah, Saifedean Ammous talks about this. The time preference for there family blah blah.

The Kim family of North Korea is a monarchy….how is that working out for the citizens?

All of them, take your pick. If you are using violence or coercion against peaceful people to get your way then that would be tyrannical, no political process of voting or delegates could dissolve this, it can only obscure it.

As far as the practical distinctions between something like a democracy and a monarchy, we can evaluate the game theory of incentives and power structures play out (How a dictatorship would be distinct from a monarchy seems blurry, I'm only going to address a monarchy to keep things simple).

In a monarchy the king has an incentive to preserve the wealth of the nation for their grandchildren, the future monarchs. In a system of elected representatives like we have, the incentive is to abuse the system as much as possible to maximize returns over a short term limit. There are several examples of kings that proved to rule better than democracies/republics have shown, the king of Norway is well respected to this day, Serbias monarchy is generally held in high regard too, the Brits love their monarchs but they have limited power to affect change at the political level. Contrasted with democracies, which always trend towards social programs, taxation, war, and destruction in due course, Greece, Rome, us.

George Bush did 9/11 and invaded the Middle East because his wife hates him.

Using quotes to falsely define a term like tyranny is the best way of getting me to break out dictionary definitions. No, I am not for centralized authoritarianism, which is precisely why I do not support democracy or any other form of government. You said that democracies categorically couldn't be tyrannical, and I argued that they absolutely can be; I would further argue that the current order of democracies is in fact tyrannical, and that this is basically inevitable. Is it worth going that far though? My arguments about the categorical requirements of tyranny appear to have disturbed you and now you are resorting to personal attacks.

If you acknowledge that an oppressive majority can exist, and you read the definition as clearly as I did, why are you singling out "synonym: dictatorial" as opposed to "despotic and oppressive"?

Even "dictatorial" does not mean "dictator", see #1

Is it that you can't envision an oppressive majority rule?

No its not, gang rape is tyrannical, and power is held by the majority.