Re: Utah anti-evolution bill filed

wade wrote:

>
> Robin Levett wrote:
>> wade wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Robin Levett wrote:
>> >> wade wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > John Wilkins wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Something to remember is that barring the concentration of
>> >> >> armaments in a small group, and sometimes not even then, even
>> >> >> dictatorships are to an extent subject to the will of the
>> >> >> citizenry. The difference between dictatorships, including
>> >> >> theocracies like Taliban Afghanistan, and democracy, is that the
>> >> >> majority may not disregard the interests and rights of the
>> >> >> minorities.
>> >> >
>> >> > Huh?
>> >> >
>> >> > The majority can and often do disregard the interests and rights of
>> >> > the minorities. There isn't anything undemocratic about this.
>> >> > Pretending
>> >> > otherwise puts an undeserved halo about democracy whose greatest
>> >> > virtue is truely that of being a lesser of many evils.
>> >>
>> >> You're describing mob-rule, not democracy.
>> >
>> > Where, exactly, does democracy require that the majority may not
>> > disregard the interests and rights of the minorities?
>> >
>> > I know that doing so fits into some peoples extended view of
>> > a right thinking sense of good government, and some go so far
>> > and to reuse the term democracy to mean that sort of government,
>> > but nothing about democracy itself protects against the
>> > tyrany of the majority.
>>
>> It depends what you mean by "democracy itself", and we may be arguing
>> about definitions here.
>>
>> You are describing "mob-rule" - democracy red in tooth and etymology
>> (alternatively "majoritarianism"). A democratic society (and that term
>> may be where the difference between us comes) cannot remain so without
>> some
>> defence of minority rights. At the very least, it cannot by majority
>> vote
>> remove a minority's right to vote. That is a definitional matter - once
>> there is a group excluded from voting, you do not have a democracy.
>
> So if convicted felons cannot vote, it is not a democracy.
> If 16 year olds cannot vote, it is not a democracy.

I don't believe I said either of those things. Nor did I say that
preventing the dead from voting, or refusing babes in arms the vote,
stopped a society being democratic.

>
>> Whether you accept this proposition at that stage, you must after the
>> second or subsequent iteration where the sum of the members of the groups
>> retaining the vote is less than a majority of the society.
>
> Oh I think that 'one man, one vote' is pretty much the definition of
> democracy so that I agree to the extent that the majority cannot
> take away the rights of the minority to vote. But that's all that
> democracy itself guarentees. If "democratic society" implies further
> protections for the rights of minorities, well I'm all for democratic
> societies but as a matter of language it's pollyanna-eske.
>
>
>> Again, there are minority rights that are necessary for democracy to work
>> -
>> such as some right to freedom of speech. Without some freedom of speech,
>> it is not possible to discern what the wishes of the demos are so as to
>> implement them.
>
> I'm sorry but 'some freedom of speech' is too much like freedom of
> speech except when it bothers the majority.

I don't see the relevance here; I am saying that there must be at least a
minimum level of freedom of speech (for both minority and majority) for
democracy to work - how much more than that minimum is desirable, or
whether indeed that minimum must be set at absolute freedom of speech
without any restriction, is irrelevant to the issue. Your argument - that
democracy imports no notion of indefeasible minority rights - only works if
no freedom of speech is required.

>
>> There are more such rights that you also dismiss as merely good
>> government, and not part of democracy (I could make arguments for freedom
>> from arbitrary arrest, for example), but perhaps we can stick with these
>> for the moment.
>
>
>> > "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the
>> > society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one
>> > part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a
>> > majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the
>> > minority will be insecure." -- James Madison
>>
>> ...from an essay in which he referred not once to "democracy".
>
> The issue here is the democracy is a form of government where
> the vote of the majority rules the day. That is, in general, a
> good thing. It can be a bad thing when the majority want to
> do a bad thing. That about sums it up. The variant on democracy
> that you describe is a better thing but it really needs a
> different name.

I'm not so sure - I'm not even describing a liberal democracy, which
involves many other indefeasible freedoms, but simply a society which
permits 'one man, one vote' to work.

> Otherwise there is an implication that being
> a democracy in the narrow sense is good enough. I submit
> to you, does Dub understand the difference?

I would hesitate to guess the minimum level of Dub's mental competence.

--
Robin Levett
rlevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Voting will not set you free
    ... Freedom requires that we constrain the will of the majority, ... of democracy. ... rights, and therefore legal and inheritance rights, as straight people. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: A Parable of Two Carpenters
    ... >> wouldn't a true democracy allow everyone to vote on every issue? ... > anything you don't want to be involved in, there is NO freedom, only ... _do_ count...it's principles that mean that there is a voting booth at ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Do you support freedom or democracy?
    ... Excellent article exposing the serious fault line between freedom ... "Democracy should operate within the constraints of a Constitution." ... Freedom vs. Unlimited Majority Rule ... principle of individual rights. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Utah anti-evolution bill filed
    ... >>> there is a group excluded from voting, you do not have a democracy. ... >> So if convicted felons cannot vote, ... >>> such as some right to freedom of speech. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Definition of "rich"?
    ... You've showed me only your personal bias and confidence in democracy. ... A democracy rule as the majority wants. ... The biggest form of welfare it is grabbing the wealth from creator and give ... idiots (politicians) will inevitable find a way around it. ...
    (sci.econ)