But it is worth remembering and repeating to yourself whenever you find a policy which has an 'unfortunate' and cruel side effect. Nine times out of ten, the cruelty is the point, and the actual side effect is the stated aim. It is worth remembering, even when you support the policy.
US states have power over everything that isn't given to the federal government (10th Amendment). So all state laws preempt all city/county/municipality/township/local/etc. laws.
What problem does he have in his air conditioner equipped office? Democracy is not only about the will of majority, it's about protecting the rights of minorities, too.
>Democracy is not only about the will of majority, it's about protecting the rights of minorities, too.
No, it's not. It's about the majority getting its way; that's the whole point of the majority vote winning the election.
Better-designed democratic systems attempt to share power with minority groups to mitigate this problem, but it's always a problem. I don't think there's any way to have a truly democratic system where the rights of a minority group are respected and protected when a large majority actually hates them and/or wants to exploit them. There's a reason the most harmonious democratic societies are always ones that don't have much contention between different groups, or very little diversity to begin with.
Look over to Europe. Even the majority wins, still the rights of minorities are protected. It doesn't mean it's will is protected.
One example:
Roma people: Everyone hates them, but still they can exercise their rights.
Birth abortion: there are a lot of people who try to do it but are hindered by aggression. To protect their rights is the democratic states exercise.
And so on. I don't think Europe has less contention between different groups, nor less diversity. You're right, that the diversity will get less in harmonic societies, but in my eyes because each member of the society takes up the thinking and learnings of the society because it's good, not because the society forces him to.
There's is s difference between majorities will and minorities rights. Rights are the same of each of the members :)
Winning an election doesn't mean majority. See what a majority can do about birth abortions in Poland. It was practically the first thing they did once they could.
Winning an election is a part of a democratic process. Making the laws in the legislative part as a election-winnet is another democratic process: consensus finding. It's not always possible to do "as said" - you need a majority of the elected members to vote for. There's also a lot of bargaining like "if you vote for x, then you'll get y for that".
Just take the parliament of Israel with it's 40 or so parties and each with their own wishes. Just take the Parlament of Germany, or that of Poland. As always: the one wins, who can bring more people/votes onto his side.
If the Poland's conservative party with a big percentage of Poland's inhabitants is against birth control and abortions, and the elections winner is the opposite of the conservative - then you have a problem and need to bargain with the other peergroup of conservatists..
So, winning an election is actually meaning majority. But coalitions of other parties may sum up to a bigger vote count / majority. In either case you have the government and the opposition. The opposition can be higher in vote counts. It's getting difficult to find a consensus with something if the bigger opposition doesn't agree.
Wow, these links are ridiculously wrong and fantastical. There is no fundamental protection of human rights in a democracy, unless the majority votes for it somehow.
Just look at the USA: it was a democracy since it started, and it had actual slavery for about 75 years until it fought a brutal civil war that ended it.
Even after that, for another 100 years, Black people didn't have any kind of civil rights and were routinely abused and murdered. They couldn't even vote in most cases. How exactly did democracy protect them?
Even today, there's enormous evidence of racist treatment of Black people (especially from the police). How many more years do they have to wait for this wonderful democratic system to protect them and treat them as equals?
That's true. But it's not about democracy, rather it's about the laws written down under a democracy. Two different things. You can have a democracy, but wrong laws. It's up to the legislative to find the proper laws. If it doesn't do it, the majority will choose another legislation members in elections and (may be) they will do it then..
If there's a bad treatment by the police, then it's a sign for bad police and weak laws.
please, do not mix up democracy vs rights vs laws. Because the people of color also have same constitution rights - after majorities will forced this through election of legislative members, who introduced the change with laws, somewhen 50y ago. But the mindset of a few people hinders the change now (like the racists in the police..) and the laws are to weak to hinder them on doing so: the punishment is not scary enough.
"Wrong" laws is a subjective judgment. If the laws are that "wrong", the people will vote for leaders who change them. That didn't happen in the US (until the late 1960s CRA) because those slavery and Jim Crow laws weren't "wrong" in the eyes of most of the electorate.
Bad treatment by police is the same thing. Police have gotten away with that for ages because the majority supported it or at least tolerated it.
>please, do not mix up democracy vs rights vs laws.
Why not? They're inextricably entwined. People only have the rights that laws give them, and laws are made by elected leaders.
>Because the people of color also have same constitution rights
No, they don't. Black people had no such rights until after the Civil War. Black people in South Africa had no such rights either until the end of Apartheid. Constitutions only give the rights that the writers wanted.
Your history knowledge is better then mine here, but, in each of your cases you assume the people get the laws they are given by the government and name some historical examples. What you see there is the evolution of democracy. In 1960th people of color had been granted access to universities. It was found anti constructional and the government was forced to change the law. So it's not the way you say, but likely, the people have basic rights and choose the government in elections. government, in turn, makes the laws (legislative), the high judges can judge these laws (Judiciary). And the police have to execute the laws (executive). They all control each other.
If the majority chooses another party, so the laws can be changed again - if there's a majority for it in the readings. So.. I think all of your examples do not take into account, that all if the historical events you named are Preceded by the change of the "not so democratic" or regimes to peoples freshly elected ones. And that had been preceded by a strong voice of people raised. It's a important point. That's evolution of democracy.
21 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 61.0 ms ] threadBut it is worth remembering and repeating to yourself whenever you find a policy which has an 'unfortunate' and cruel side effect. Nine times out of ten, the cruelty is the point, and the actual side effect is the stated aim. It is worth remembering, even when you support the policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
States are NOT creations of the federal govt. The federal govt is a creation of the states.
Never will understand. Never will do.
No, it's not. It's about the majority getting its way; that's the whole point of the majority vote winning the election.
Better-designed democratic systems attempt to share power with minority groups to mitigate this problem, but it's always a problem. I don't think there's any way to have a truly democratic system where the rights of a minority group are respected and protected when a large majority actually hates them and/or wants to exploit them. There's a reason the most harmonious democratic societies are always ones that don't have much contention between different groups, or very little diversity to begin with.
Roma people: Everyone hates them, but still they can exercise their rights.
Birth abortion: there are a lot of people who try to do it but are hindered by aggression. To protect their rights is the democratic states exercise.
And so on. I don't think Europe has less contention between different groups, nor less diversity. You're right, that the diversity will get less in harmonic societies, but in my eyes because each member of the society takes up the thinking and learnings of the society because it's good, not because the society forces him to.
There's is s difference between majorities will and minorities rights. Rights are the same of each of the members :)
Just take the parliament of Israel with it's 40 or so parties and each with their own wishes. Just take the Parlament of Germany, or that of Poland. As always: the one wins, who can bring more people/votes onto his side.
If the Poland's conservative party with a big percentage of Poland's inhabitants is against birth control and abortions, and the elections winner is the opposite of the conservative - then you have a problem and need to bargain with the other peergroup of conservatists..
So, winning an election is actually meaning majority. But coalitions of other parties may sum up to a bigger vote count / majority. In either case you have the government and the opposition. The opposition can be higher in vote counts. It's getting difficult to find a consensus with something if the bigger opposition doesn't agree.
.. democracy... :)
> No, it's not. It's about the majority getting its way
Majority Rule, Minority Rights https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/majority
How Does Democracy Protect Minority Rights? https://constitutionus.com/democracy/how-does-democracy-prot...
Majority Rule and Minority Rights https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/majority-ru...
Just look at the USA: it was a democracy since it started, and it had actual slavery for about 75 years until it fought a brutal civil war that ended it.
Even after that, for another 100 years, Black people didn't have any kind of civil rights and were routinely abused and murdered. They couldn't even vote in most cases. How exactly did democracy protect them?
Even today, there's enormous evidence of racist treatment of Black people (especially from the police). How many more years do they have to wait for this wonderful democratic system to protect them and treat them as equals?
If there's a bad treatment by the police, then it's a sign for bad police and weak laws.
please, do not mix up democracy vs rights vs laws. Because the people of color also have same constitution rights - after majorities will forced this through election of legislative members, who introduced the change with laws, somewhen 50y ago. But the mindset of a few people hinders the change now (like the racists in the police..) and the laws are to weak to hinder them on doing so: the punishment is not scary enough.
Bad treatment by police is the same thing. Police have gotten away with that for ages because the majority supported it or at least tolerated it.
>please, do not mix up democracy vs rights vs laws.
Why not? They're inextricably entwined. People only have the rights that laws give them, and laws are made by elected leaders.
>Because the people of color also have same constitution rights
No, they don't. Black people had no such rights until after the Civil War. Black people in South Africa had no such rights either until the end of Apartheid. Constitutions only give the rights that the writers wanted.
If the majority chooses another party, so the laws can be changed again - if there's a majority for it in the readings. So.. I think all of your examples do not take into account, that all if the historical events you named are Preceded by the change of the "not so democratic" or regimes to peoples freshly elected ones. And that had been preceded by a strong voice of people raised. It's a important point. That's evolution of democracy.
Ban of heat protection regulations for outdoor workers…