Consider two cases.
The majority of Spanish voters voted in a Socialist government, ‘thereby letting the terrorists win.’
Opinion polls in the Old South showed a majority of people preferred segregation of the races.
Not to discuss the specifics of the cases, but should society always follow the dictate of ‘Majority Rules?’ Surely we must admit that from time to time the majority can be wrong.
When is it the duty of government (or of individuals) to resist the will of the majority?
Kindly find my reply here.
This is, at least in the US, the advantage of an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court serves to prevent damage being done to the fundamental legal structure of the country by the whims of the majority and/or the government of the time.
Democracy is not a perfect system by any means, but the potential damage to be done by a government which ignores the will of the majority is far greater than that to be done by the mob themselves, for the mob will lose interest in a cause far quicker than a dictator (for such a government would be inherently dictatorial) will lose interest in maintaining power.
When you don’t agree with the outcome, usually.
Of course, the Spanish government did go against the will of the majority in the matter of waging war on Iraq. One could easily argue that the election result was a reaction to that (given the rapidly dwindling support for the government which followed therefrom).
When there is no placement of “minority rights” at a higher level than “majority rule”.
Well, QtM, since rights recognition at a Constitutional level requires a large majority, I don’t think we’ve quite left the problem behind.
Here is Sailor’s comments, for those who did not follow the link:
"Paul in Saudi you are a fucking idiot and a monumental asshole. The main problem with democracy is people like you and we still defend the right of idiots like you to vote so just shut the fuck up you moron.’
Thanks for contributing.
Just for context, what was the comment that provoked that? I scrolled up on that page, and couldn’t find it. There are 7 pages preceding, in that thread.
I think Madison hit it right on the head when, in Federalist 47 (I think that’s the number), he mentioned that the tyrrany of the majority is not always a good thing. One of the beauties of the American system is that it attempts to prevent the minority form being squashed by the majority.
Oh, I see, Sailor’s thoughtful remarks were in reply to my OP here. He posted them elsewhere for the sake of connivence. Or something.
In any case, I am not advocating either of the positions in the OP, I just wanted to use examples that both left- and right-wing people might understand. (I was not counting on Sailor to misunderstand).
I have no problem with the Spaniards voting for whoever they like.
My question is just the one I asked. When should a government (or a person) do what it thinks is right, when the majority of people are wrong?
In the United States a strong Constitution is designed to protect minority rights. That is to say the decision-making process has lots of places where a minority opinion can exert a moderating influence.
But take for example New Zealand. It has only one house of Parliament, and no written constitution (I think). So when and why should the Government go against the will of the people?
Certainly we need to allow people have significant input into government, but it is obvious that sometimes the majority can be wrong. Consider the case of Prohibition in the United States.
Not a life-or-death issue, but in hindsight it was a fairly silly idea. Would you as a Congressman, Senator whatever have voted against the mob?
Why? Would it be wrong to do so?
“it is obvious that sometimes the majority can be wrong”
“Right” and “wrong” are subjective concepts. This is because different people can have differing views on the matter.
This is why any significant course action should be first debated in an impartial manner.
I have yet to see a valid evidence that this is an ewxample of a majority vote being wrong. Could someone provide one or more cites (other than speculation by right-wing pundits in the US) that demonstrate an unambiguous victory for terrorism by Spain having selected a different political party to govern the country?
II Gyan II, I did the same thing, I didn’t remember writing in the Spain thread. I have no opinion on the internal affairs of Spain. (I do love Madrid however.)
After looking in vain for what the heck provoked Sailor, I realized his comments were in response to my OP here.
I do not hold either of the views in my two hypotheticals. I simply wanted to give one left-wing and one right-wing case.
I seem to have upset a few people by doing so, but it certainly was not my intent.
Perhaps Prohibition in the United States would have been a better example of when the majority of people were wrong.
Yeah, I’m not sure the Spanish elections were the greatest way to put that.
I’m against the war, have been from the beginning, but if we were to suddenly pack up and leave right now, we’d be triggering a bloodbath, and quite possibly helping the terrorists like crazy.
As to majority rule… well… there are places in this country right NOW where if the majority made the rules, being gay, female, or of an unpopular skin color could result in anything from curtailment of civil rights to an instant death sentence. Hell, right NOW in Vidor, Texas, black folks have theoretical rights, but no dark-skinned person of ANY race is going to be caught there after dark, unless he’s crazy or doesn’t know where he is.
Generally, that’s what LAW is about… enforcing the rights of all citizens under certain agreed-upon circumstances. It’s also why we outline in our major documents the major difference between our form of government and many others:
Some form of government assumes the government has whatever powers it wants, except where specifically prohibited.
OUR form of government assumes the government has NO powers, except where specifically PERMITTED by law.
And while the politicians can run riot, we still have the option of replacing them periodically. They’re still responsible to us. To some extent.
Is this perfect? No. For one thing, in recent years, end-runs around the rules have become increasingly popular – I refuse to believe that a “congressional declaration that lets the President do whatever he wants” is the same as a “congressional declaration of war;” in fact, it strikes me as a damn sight dumber… but it does give the congressmen who voted for it some degree of plausible deniability. If war winds up being popular, they can say they voted for it; if it winds up being unpopular, they can say, “Don’t blame me. Bush did it all. I just made the mistake of letting him do it.”
Ultimately, it has to boil down to what’s good for the people. ALL the people. Or at least as many people as you can manage.
Human beings can be pretty shortsighted. If a President simply said, “Let’s lower taxes, and keep lowering taxes forever,” I have no doubt that we’d vote ourselves into a tax free state, and smile while the government went broke and got bought out and we became the United States Of Wal-Mart or whatever.
It is the duty of our leaders to make sure this doesn’t happen. This is called “statesmanship.” It is the ability to act on behalf of all the people, for the benefit of all the people. Even when it ain’t popular. Even when it winds up destroying your political career, affecting your health, driving you insane, or putting you in an early grave. I personally think you can get a pretty good idea how good a President you have by looking at pictures of him during his first campaign, then more pictures of him after four years in the White House.
A President who looks good and tanned and fit after four years as President is a guy who thrives on power… and isn’t someone I’d trust.
A President who lookes like he’s been through the back side of Hell and back after four years is someone who has had to make some damn tough decisions, and has lost some sleep. He looks like someone who was trying to do the right thing.
…but, then, that’s just my opinion.
The terrorists may be claiming a victory, but there are other factors to consider:
[ul][li]Would a change in the Spanish government have happened even without the train attacks?[/li][li]Would opposition to Spanish involvement in Iraq have increased anyway?[/li][li]Does Spanish withdrawl from post-Saddam Iraq help terrorism in any palpable way?[/ul][/li]
The impression I get is that all the terorrists accomplished was killing a lot of people and may have slightly accelerated a political change that was coming anyway. I’m not willing to cede them a victory of any kind, and I’d be happy to see them all killed.
Did they? At the time, those polls may have been seriously biased by only asking whites (who in many Southern venues actually comprised a minority of the local population). In any case, it took a generation or so for most of the pseudoscientifc bullshit (i.e. blacks are genetically inferior, prone to violence, have uncontrolled urges, etc.) to fade. A number of feathers got ruffled in the process, no doubt, but the South is certainly safer and more prosperous now than before desegregation.
Very few socieites have ever adhered strictly to the dictate of “Majority Rules”. It’s simply too unstable a form of government, crashing from extreme to extreme. As for Spain, the vote wasn’t “Do you want to withdraw troops from Iraq, yes or no?” The vote was for a government that promised to take such action. There’s nothing remotely mob-rule about it.
When your individual behaviour does no harm to society, despite all claims to the contrary. Letting blacks sit at the front of the bus and use public drinking fountains did not have the potential to destroy the South. Voting for a socialist government will not destroy Spain. In neither case is the alleged harm proven to exist. In contrast, you can’t claim the right to murder people at random or shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre, because these acts cause a clear damage to society which outweighs any possible benefit you might derive.
In the last 100 or so years, in fact, many societies have gradually dropped restrictions on their own citizens that, frankly, had outlived their rational basis (if they ever had one to begin with). There simply wasn’t any good reason not to let women vote, for example. There simply wasn’t any good reason to keep restrictions on Southern blacks. In Spain, there simply isn’t any good reason to try to block people from voting for a legal political party (as I’m assuming the socialists are). There are good reasons for keeping numerous other restrictions, though.
Al-Qaidi, on the other hand, has as its goals the establishment of societies that are just loaded with pointless restrictions. If you were living in Taliban-era Afghanistan, you could be declared a criminal/heretic (in theological societies, the two are identical) on what was essentially the whim of a local official, who could decide you to be not in keeping with the tenets of Islam. If the official wanted to send thugs to your house to beat you up, he could. That strikes me as the epitome of mob rule; no protections whatsoever for the individual, whose best course of action is therefore to be as invisible as possible except when it comes time for you to show your loyal support for the autocracy and go beat up your neighbor.
Fits in with what i was thinking.
Government just about always thinks the people are wrong, becasue of the elevated position and egos most of the higher ministiers have (im talking from the uk here btw).
If you think that those higher people have anything but contempt for the common man…think again.
The people of a country have the right to make their majority feeling effective, since they are, by definition, most of the people of that country.
If there is one thing that pisses me off more than anything, it is jumped up government types telling everybody “below” them that they are wrong, and that they cant be trusted to decide for themselves.
As an example, lets assume for a moment that the majority feeling in the UK this time last year was against the invasion of Iraq.
Most of the mps in the labour party would have told them they were wrong, but who, if they were wrong, would bear the consequences?
The ideals out of the way for a moment however, with such powerful media installed, it would be very difficult to have a proper, rational, majority making decisions.
Decisions based on the ITV news, the Sun newspaper, and the Daily Mail somehow do not fill me with confidence…
Frankly, the observation whether something is harmful, is a matter of perspective. Individuals within a society are shaped by the dogmas of their generations. Which dogma(s) holds the most sway, depends on the power majority. In a representative democracy, individuals apt enough to get entrusted power, tend to temper their impulses. But they are ultimately subject to (and dependent on) the mass forces of society. When they ignore one dictate of the majority, it is best to do so only when they are appealing to a broader and baser dictate of that majority.
We are not a “Democracy” but instead a Republic, where we elect representatives to make the “best” decisions for the masses (balanced by the lexecutive and egislative arms of the government). If we were a true democracy, where the majority rules absolutely, we would not be in Iraq now, segregation and slavery would probably still be extant, recreational drug use would probably be legal, etc.
It is interesting to note that many (probably most all) modern day accounts of this country’s birth refer to it as a “democracy”. This is one of the greatest misrepresentations that can be put in print. This country was formed as a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. As a point of historical FACT, a democracy has never worked and has ALWAYS evolved into a socialistic dictatorship.