Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Since the majority opinion is not the gold standard in your estimations

Weren't you the one who was saying ending slavery was bad because they didn't respect minority rights (for plantation owners, not minorities) while doing it?

[wierd]

Comparing two unfair systems, while ignoring what was actually said, is disingenuous.

Note what I ACTUALLY said.

In a FAIR legal system, the rulings issued by a court on such matters represent the wishes of the majority, tempered with sobriety about the consequences of such rulings.

with added emphasis.


There's a reason why the UK's government kept the house of lords, and ADDED the house of commons. The input of the landed aristocracy is valuable in the governance of their nation. If there was only the house of commons, majority rule would result in tyrrany of the majority. If there was only the house of lords, it would be traditional despotism. Combined, something resembling fairness emerges.

Likewise, there is a reason why the early US codified the need for a jury of one's peers for criminal proceedings. Prior to this, courts used English common law, and jurors could actually be imprisoned for disobeying an order from the judge to find a defendant guilty. This imposition adds a little majority power, and makes the court more fair. It does not take away control of the court from the judge or the legal system while doing that.

I dont see how it is wrong to assert that a FAIR court weighs both, then arrives at a sober conclusion.

Further, I dont see how asserting that the laws being decided on are not the consequence of a majority decision making process, given the mechanism of government the US employs. (It may not be majority of the lay public, but it is majority of their elected representatives. If there is a disconnect there, it is because the representatives are not representing their constituency. (s A shocker, I know. /s) There's a reason why the TPP and pals are so odious-- they remove even this limited form of majority input, and cuddle up with pure despotism.)

In the US, "Legislating at the bench" is a pejorative, and one for a reason.

[mainiac]

A jury is a judicial structure.  A bicameral legislative structure is a legislative one.  There are very different needs.

Also bicameral legislatures are a barbarous relic and have never done what they are supposed to.  The Senate is one of the big reasons the slavery debate wasn't resolved long before the civil war.

[wierd]

Nobody said it was a perfect system, or even a good system.

It is simply the best system currently available.

( a system with more than 2 sides, is still just decision by majority. You just increase the number of interested parties. The single greatest benefit of adding more parties, is that it hamstrings "agendas".)

[Wolock]

In a FAIR legal system, the rulings issued by a court on such matters represent the wishes of the majority, tempered with sobriety about the consequences of such rulings.

That's why Strict scrutiny exist when the courts deal with Rights. It serve in some rulings such as Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade and U.S. v. Windsor.

[mainiac]

It is simply the best system currently available.

No it's not.  The best system available is proportional representation in a unicameral parlimentary system.

[wierd]

That requires that representatives actually represent their electorate, no?

Isn't that the essential problem with the US right now?

And how is "proportional representation" not a form of tyranny by majority?
(EG, if population dense coastal centers dominate politics that affect rural land-locked locales, how do the less dense populations seek effective redress? Since representation is proportional, the less dense land-locked areas get less representation, proportional to their lower population.)

[mainiac]

And how is "proportional representation" not a form of tyranny by majority?

And it's also mob rule, rule by crazed man-hating suffragettes and rule by welfare queens.  Just because you've applied a perjorative buzzword to something doesn't mean it's not good.  Tyranny of the minority has done much more damage then tyranny of the majority ever has.  When you have proportional representation, median voter pressures push the parties to a reasonable posture compared to other systems.

[wierd]

No, it hasn't done that, YET.

(Although I think a historical examination of ancient greece is applicable there.)

edit
(I don't mean to imply a false equivalence between direct democracy (what the Athenians had) and representational democratic republicanism, which is what Mainiac is advocating.  I was addressing the statement that "tyranny of the majority" has done less damage, historically, than tyranny of the minority (eg, despotism.)  I was pointing out a historical example of such damage.  I am implying that the reason it has not done so much damage compared to its counterpart, is because it has been used less often historically, and should not be considered any less dangerous.)

(Further, there's the inherent problems with representational republicanism-- The refusal of elected representatives to accurately represent the political wills of their constituency, and instead act on their own volition. This is a trend away from majority decision making, back toward despotic rule-- The only real safeguard would be something like term limits to prevent continual re-election (such as from "electioneering") This trend of representatives favoring their own judgements over the political wills of their electorate is implicated in a lot of problems in the US right now, such as the undue influence of political lobbyists in the policy making process, which give rise to allegations, like those made against former representative Chris Dodd, when allegations of quid pro quo were levied. If the elected representative strictly adheres to the political will of their electorate, then they simply temper that political will into their representational vote. If they however, decide not to do so, and impose their own opinion first, then they are acting not as a representative, but as a patrician. )

[Dorsidwarf]

Hey can you lovebirds take your social progress to another thread?

I check this thread for Hillary burns and The Adventures of Hairdo-man, not arguments over the righteousness of social mobility.

[Zangi]

US v China
Change in social policy/laws, -1 stability.
How it works in the US: Anyone can just spread half-truths and worse about social policy/laws they don't like.  It is ok, since there is some truth to it in there somewhere, cause of that one worst case scenario.  (Also people in gov't actively doing their durndest to make it not work.)
Chinese Solution: State controlled media and stuff blasting the propaganda highlighting the good parts so the populace would be more accepting to the change.  Sabotage probably isn't as tolerated... maybe.

[wierd]

In other words:

US: Big problems with SNR-- Much careful analysis of rhetoric needed.
China: Despotism + Spin for the win! (with occasional use of tanks to literally crush rebellion.)

[Shadowlord]

That reminds me of something. "Rhetoric! And you believe it!"

[wierd]

Ahh, politics-- Where one man's rhetoric is another man's intrinsic truth.

Film at 11.

[Toady One]

I've removed some posts, and some posts up there somewhere were also veering into insulting rather than not insulting territory.  Please recenter yourselves on the overall topic of the thread, with additional well-wishing and good vibes.