Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Some things that 2pid is too dumb to understand
Pros and cons
Traditionally the purpose of democracy is to prevent tyranny (the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few). That is, democracy is not necessarily intended to give us "good" government, but to put some limits to the abuse of power, and to ensure that any bad government can be deposed and replaced peacefully. Nonetheless, many people think that there is no system that can ideally order society and that democracy is not morally ideal. These advocates say that at the heart of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. The opponents to this viewpoint say that in a liberal democracy where particular minority groups are protected from being targeted, majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually take care to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately are part of a minority on a future democratic decision. While a clear improvement over tyranny, this potential threat of coercive power is still cause for concern. For this reason, some countries (such as the USA) have created constitutions that protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a super- majority. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but as a practical matter it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions. Tyranny of the majority When there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, but also on some issues with only a few elite voters, majority rule often gives rise to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority," i.e. fear of a majority empowered to do anything it wanted to an adversary minority. For example, it is theoretically possible for a majority to vote that a certain religion should be criminalized, and its members punished with death. Proponents of democracy argue that just as there is a special constitutional process for constitutional changes, there could be a distinction between legislation which would be handled through direct democracy and the modification of constitutional rights which would have a more deliberative procedure there attached, and thereby less vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. http://www.politicsdefined.com/content/democracy.htm So, 2pid, as you beat your chest and talk about your love of democracy and "the will of the people" you should consider the above. (I'll bet $1.00 2pid sees the above paragraphs as a "socialist plot" or some other similar lowbrow stupidity.) |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Some things that 2pid is too dumb to understand
On Mar 8, 5:29*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: Pros and cons Traditionally the purpose of democracy is to prevent tyranny (the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few). That is, democracy is not necessarily intended to give us "good" government, but to put some limits to the abuse of power, and to ensure that any bad government can be deposed and replaced peacefully. Nonetheless, many people think that there is no system that can ideally order society and that democracy is not morally ideal. These advocates say that at the heart of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. The opponents to this viewpoint say that in a liberal democracy where particular minority groups are protected from being targeted, majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually take care to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately are part of a minority on a future democratic decision. While a clear improvement over tyranny, this potential threat of coercive power is still cause for concern. For this reason, some countries (such as the USA) have created constitutions that protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a super- majority. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but as a practical matter it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions. Tyranny of the majority When there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, but also on some issues with only a few elite voters, majority rule often gives rise to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority," i.e. fear of a majority empowered to do anything it wanted to an adversary minority. For example, it is theoretically possible for a majority to vote that a certain religion should be criminalized, and its members punished with death. Proponents of democracy argue that just as there is a special constitutional process for constitutional changes, there could be a distinction between legislation which would be handled through direct democracy and the modification of constitutional rights which would have a more deliberative procedure there attached, and thereby less vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. http://www.politicsdefined.com/content/democracy.htm So, 2pid, as you beat your chest and talk about your love of democracy and "the will of the people" you should consider the above. (I'll bet $1.00 2pid sees the above paragraphs as a "socialist plot" or some other similar lowbrow stupidity.) So is this part of Obama's move to "Communism", 2pid? Do you agree with the above or do you see it as an inconvenience? LoL. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How can 2pid get things so wrong... | Audio Opinions | |||
2pid, you have to help me understand | Audio Opinions | |||
Help me understand SMPTE | Pro Audio | |||
I Don't Understand | Vacuum Tubes | |||
I don't understand (LOL! LOt"S!) | Audio Opinions |