Quote:
Quote by: Gods_Mercenary  But the majority's powers are limited by the dissenter's individual rights. The Rights should be a function of government, as was attempted in the Bill of Rights. If the 49% feels the majority has become intolerably tyrranical, they can always rebel and protect their own rights, which is what they join a government for anyway. If they lose, then the 51% have chosen Tyrranny, and deserve what they get. |
I'm still trying to understand what you mean by a perfect democracy:
Quote:
Gods_Mercenary:
First of all, even in a perfect democracy, government is tied to the will of the majority of the people. Jefferson would have supported the government not interfering in most aspects of a person's life no matter how much the majority wanted to. Second of all, the people as a whole are idiotic.
|
I'm just fascinated with the combination of ingredients there. The "people as a whole" ad hominem argument is superb!
You asked what group rights are vs. individual rights. Do you disagree about what group rights are as I've described them? Is the "will of the majority" a right? It does have a legal basis in the Constitution, does it not? And there's always the fundamental "might makes right" argument, which can be very persuasive if you happen to find a gun pointed at your head. Do you recognize this as a problem? I'm not sure how you are talking about a majority rule scenario and individual rights. Are they fundamentally different things in your mind?
I dissented with Congress when they passed the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq in 2002 -- and they did so unconstitutionally in my opinion, and my opinion seems to concur with a number of legal scholars. It was a huge majority vote. Should it wish to, this government could invoke conscription and force me into the military and put me into a conflict with which I fundamentally disagree on all levels. That certainly would be an example of the government interfering in my individual life. Do I have the individual right to dissent? How do you see "dissent" and "individual rights" correlated in this instance? And how would that in any way limit the power of the majority? Could you explain what you mean by dissenter's rights being protected, please?
I see you have resorted to using the word "they" in both a majority and minority group sense. This again raises the issue of group rights which you say you don't recognize. but the individual rights issue itself is still the question. Individual rights themselves pertain to the individual. But to solve them, the individual must resort to a group, even the group agreement in the rule of law is not superseded by a higher authority in a democracy. Monarchy, Theocracy, maybe yes, in concept. Do you see the inherent paradox you are working with?
In order for me to deal with what I feel are losses to my individuality, which are defined by the Bill of Rights, supposedly protected by the rule of law, you suggest I must form a large group and "rebel." Individually I am powerless. "We" rebels together will be facing some legal issues, some of which may be created by the majority in their right as legislators to create laws.
I seems to me that implicitly, here, the majority gives individual rights, and the majority can take them away. This can occur hegemonically or by sheer coercion.
If it turns out that the majority becomes a tyranny, maybe out of combined fear of an enemy defined in their minds as "terrorism," abrogating the individual rights of the minority (and their own as well), and you say they deserve what they get, how does that solve this problem of designing a democracy? Is there a "perfect" democracy in which the problem would be resolvable? If so, what would the structures be in resolving the problem?