3 ms·

> I've never understood the difference You are not interested in understanding, you only seek emotional comfort from fear of "mob rule", which is actually a st

> I've never understood the difference You are not interested in understanding, you only seek emotional comfort from fear of "mob rule", which is actually a straw man. If you truly were interested, the answer is obvious. Switzerland, United States (some states) and Iceland sure don't sound like hell on Earth. These are some of the most democratic countries on Earth.

bmelton 11y ago
To be fair, as I remember from a documentary I watched, the number of people, when asked, who believe that democracy in America means "majority rule", outnumbers those who do not. That we aren't a democracy, but are instead a federal republic, is a distinction lost on many, especially as they clamor to remove the constitutionally protected rights of others.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  It indeed means majority rule, in a certain sense. The majority is adhoc, unlike in dictatorship, where the decision makers are defined independently of the issue. This distinction is also lost on many. :-) Regarding democracy/republic distinction. This is a non-issue, mostly invoked by people against democracy. Of course functioning democracy needs republic, constitution, and protection of rights of others, especially the right to vote (which is btw one of the first things stripped to people before genocide happens). Democracy by definition includes all minorities. You cannot have people democratically voting to take democratic rights away from someone - that's kind of a Russell's paradox. And I believe that U.S. would be much better off (for normal folks) if it actually were democracy on federal level, which it isn't, I agree. On state level U.S. is often more democratic (these are remnants of progressive movement from the beginning of 20th century) and some decisions are lot better; there are even studies that show that.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    It would be a non-issue if people understood that the rights of others weren't fungible. If the equal protection clause were better understood, such that other people's voting rights were as sacrosanct as their own, as would be other peoples' marriages, freedom of association, etc. Or perhaps if our legislative process weren't focused so much on attempting to pay lip service to the letter of the law while wholly attempting to violate the spirit of it. Regardless, we should reject majority rule where it violates constitutional restraint, but in practice, people on both sides have shown themselves all to happy to prioritize their own whimsies over the rights of others. This is not a critique of democracy, mind you, but it is a critique of the people who fail to understand the premise of constitutional restraint while attempting to enjoy their democratic privileges. If more people realized that, as a matter of schema, certain policy options were off the table, and that's a legitimate feature, not a bug, then I think we'd all be better off, but whether done through noble intent or bigotry, the suppression of another's rights is the result of having failed to understand that the necessary component to a healthy democracy is in the required inability to take things away from those you don't like.
    - asgard1024 11y ago
      Well, practice shows that people in direct democracies understand this. Because for them, being minority in referendum is a common thing. Most people are mostly in the majority and sometimes in the minority. It has been shown that (semi)direct democracy actually decreases the polarization in the society and increases willingness to compromise with others. So you may have a valid complaint, but unless the society actually practices democracy it won't get better - you will just continue to live with the imaginary fear of "majority".
      - bmelton 11y ago
        Being a minority in a referendum leaves you with being exactly that -- the minority in a referendum. Having your views represented directly is only as effective as the majority respects them. Historically, we haven't been all that great there. I'm not saying there's no good in it, but we should similarly not forget that Proposition 8 was the result of referendum.
        asgard1024 11y ago
        > Being a minority in a referendum leaves you with being exactly that -- the minority in a referendum. The point is, if there is reasonable number of referenda, you're (unless your views are extreme) unlikely to be always in the minority, and vice versa, you're unlikely to be always in the majority. So you get quickly exposed to "being on the other side of the fence". This IMHO doesn't happen in the U.S. because it is deeply divided according to party lines. > we should similarly not forget that Proposition 8 was the result of referendum Similar thing to Prop. 8 happened to Switzerland, you just need to give people time, because they are generally conservative (meaning "cautious", not in political/religious sense). I think this was case of some benefits for disabled people, first it was shot down in the referendum by similarly thin majority, but few years later the referendum was repeated and the proposal passed.
        bmelton 11y ago
        I hear you. And, to be fair, clearly, the federal republic / representative democracy that we have isn't certain to solve these problems either. That's just as much an issue of the people demanding things that they shouldn't (and our legislators capitulating) as we would have in a direct democracy -- I just prefer for there to be a filter between a knee-jerk majority and the enactment of their laws, even if it isn't as effective as I'd like it to be. If we were all starting with the assumption that everyone's rights were equal, then waiting a bit would be a more appropriate course of action than where we are. Martin Luther King Jr. once said "A right delayed is a right denied," and that resonates deeply with me. A single day in which a homosexual couple cannot be married is too much. A single day in which a transexual is not allowed agency is too much. According to the courts, a constitutionally enumerated right that is infringed is irreparable harm. I agree with that. But, that aside, the problem in either system is that we have a system in which oppressing the rights of the few is the default, and not the exception. So long as that is the case, I will prefer that the legislative process be slow, and offer as much opportunity for objection as it can possibly have, on the grounds that it is more likely to imperil further infringements than it is to slow amelioration, which is all too often only resolved by the courts.
CamperBob2 11y ago
I understand a great deal about those particular countries. I understand that in Switzerland, the People have decided that it's reasonable to hand out $1 million speeding tickets. [1] Pornography was illegal in Norway until 2006 [2], while the US (not a direct democracy or even close to one) has had its First Amendment since 1791. In Iceland, you must pay a "congregation tax" to the church of your choice[3]. Those who do not belong to a church pay the same amount to the state, according to Wikipedia, but the Church of Iceland receives funding beyond the congregation taxes paid by its members. Also in Switzerland, professional fisherman must attend classes in compassion, and special chemicals are issued for putting goldfish to death. [4] A government that can do these things to you can also do much worse, and history suggests that it eventually will. Democracy is no guarantee of liberty and rationality, and neither is a secular population. But yes, you're probably right, I'll pipe down now and move to Somalia (which I'm sure will be your next suggestion.) [1] http://jalopnik.com/the-eight-biggest-speeding-tickets-ever-issued-1108358708 http://jalopnik.com/the-eight-biggest-speeding-tickets-ever-... [2] http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48632 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax [4] http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2008/04/28/swiss-government-enacts-strict/ http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2008/04/28/swiss-governme...
- scarmig 11y ago
  >Pornography was illegal in Norway until 2006 [2], while the US (not a direct democracy or even close to one) has had its First Amendment since 1791. Is your claim here that pornography was legal in the United States since 1791, or something else? >A government that can do these things to you can also do much worse, and history suggests that it eventually will. All of the states you've mentioned have had that power and ability for at least a century. None of them are dystopian hellholes.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    (Shrug) My invocation of "mob rule" was called a straw man. I responded with concrete examples of policies that make no rational sense, and that could just as easily have arisen under a dictatorship or other harsh regime. If I hadn't identified the countries in question, it wouldn't be unreasonable to guess I was talking about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. And yes, in the plain language of our Constitution, pornography and every other product of the "press" has not been subject to legal oversight since 1791. We haven't always lived up to that ideal, but we do a better job of it than essentially anyone else including the supposedly-enlightened Nordic democracies. Here's my recent favorite act of humanist, secular "democracy": http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11494512 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti... Like I said, I don't see a qualitative difference between that and dictatorship. Feel free to mod me down if you disagree... but please do it with a mouse, and not a gun.

bmelton 11y ago

To be fair, as I remember from a documentary I watched, the number of people, when asked, who believe that democracy in America means "majority rule", outnumbers those who do not. That we aren't a democracy, but are instead a federal republic, is a distinction lost on many, especially as they clamor to remove the constitutionally protected rights of others.

asgard1024 11y ago
It indeed means majority rule, in a certain sense. The majority is adhoc, unlike in dictatorship, where the decision makers are defined independently of the issue. This distinction is also lost on many. :-) Regarding democracy/republic distinction. This is a non-issue, mostly invoked by people against democracy. Of course functioning democracy needs republic, constitution, and protection of rights of others, especially the right to vote (which is btw one of the first things stripped to people before genocide happens). Democracy by definition includes all minorities. You cannot have people democratically voting to take democratic rights away from someone - that's kind of a Russell's paradox. And I believe that U.S. would be much better off (for normal folks) if it actually were democracy on federal level, which it isn't, I agree. On state level U.S. is often more democratic (these are remnants of progressive movement from the beginning of 20th century) and some decisions are lot better; there are even studies that show that.
- bmelton 11y ago
  It would be a non-issue if people understood that the rights of others weren't fungible. If the equal protection clause were better understood, such that other people's voting rights were as sacrosanct as their own, as would be other peoples' marriages, freedom of association, etc. Or perhaps if our legislative process weren't focused so much on attempting to pay lip service to the letter of the law while wholly attempting to violate the spirit of it. Regardless, we should reject majority rule where it violates constitutional restraint, but in practice, people on both sides have shown themselves all to happy to prioritize their own whimsies over the rights of others. This is not a critique of democracy, mind you, but it is a critique of the people who fail to understand the premise of constitutional restraint while attempting to enjoy their democratic privileges. If more people realized that, as a matter of schema, certain policy options were off the table, and that's a legitimate feature, not a bug, then I think we'd all be better off, but whether done through noble intent or bigotry, the suppression of another's rights is the result of having failed to understand that the necessary component to a healthy democracy is in the required inability to take things away from those you don't like.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    Well, practice shows that people in direct democracies understand this. Because for them, being minority in referendum is a common thing. Most people are mostly in the majority and sometimes in the minority. It has been shown that (semi)direct democracy actually decreases the polarization in the society and increases willingness to compromise with others. So you may have a valid complaint, but unless the society actually practices democracy it won't get better - you will just continue to live with the imaginary fear of "majority".
    - bmelton 11y ago
      Being a minority in a referendum leaves you with being exactly that -- the minority in a referendum. Having your views represented directly is only as effective as the majority respects them. Historically, we haven't been all that great there. I'm not saying there's no good in it, but we should similarly not forget that Proposition 8 was the result of referendum.
      - asgard1024 11y ago
        > Being a minority in a referendum leaves you with being exactly that -- the minority in a referendum. The point is, if there is reasonable number of referenda, you're (unless your views are extreme) unlikely to be always in the minority, and vice versa, you're unlikely to be always in the majority. So you get quickly exposed to "being on the other side of the fence". This IMHO doesn't happen in the U.S. because it is deeply divided according to party lines. > we should similarly not forget that Proposition 8 was the result of referendum Similar thing to Prop. 8 happened to Switzerland, you just need to give people time, because they are generally conservative (meaning "cautious", not in political/religious sense). I think this was case of some benefits for disabled people, first it was shot down in the referendum by similarly thin majority, but few years later the referendum was repeated and the proposal passed.
        bmelton 11y ago
        I hear you. And, to be fair, clearly, the federal republic / representative democracy that we have isn't certain to solve these problems either. That's just as much an issue of the people demanding things that they shouldn't (and our legislators capitulating) as we would have in a direct democracy -- I just prefer for there to be a filter between a knee-jerk majority and the enactment of their laws, even if it isn't as effective as I'd like it to be. If we were all starting with the assumption that everyone's rights were equal, then waiting a bit would be a more appropriate course of action than where we are. Martin Luther King Jr. once said "A right delayed is a right denied," and that resonates deeply with me. A single day in which a homosexual couple cannot be married is too much. A single day in which a transexual is not allowed agency is too much. According to the courts, a constitutionally enumerated right that is infringed is irreparable harm. I agree with that. But, that aside, the problem in either system is that we have a system in which oppressing the rights of the few is the default, and not the exception. So long as that is the case, I will prefer that the legislative process be slow, and offer as much opportunity for objection as it can possibly have, on the grounds that it is more likely to imperil further infringements than it is to slow amelioration, which is all too often only resolved by the courts.

CamperBob2 11y ago

I understand a great deal about those particular countries. I understand that in Switzerland, the People have decided that it's reasonable to hand out $1 million speeding tickets. [1] Pornography was illegal in Norway until 2006 [2], while the US (not a direct democracy or even close to one) has had its First Amendment since 1791. In Iceland, you must pay a "congregation tax" to the church of your choice[3]. Those who do not belong to a church pay the same amount to the state, according to Wikipedia, but the Church of Iceland receives funding beyond the congregation taxes paid by its members. Also in Switzerland, professional fisherman must attend classes in compassion, and special chemicals are issued for putting goldfish to death. [4] A government that can do these things to you can also do much worse, and history suggests that it eventually will. Democracy is no guarantee of liberty and rationality, and neither is a secular population. But yes, you're probably right, I'll pipe down now and move to Somalia (which I'm sure will be your next suggestion.) [1] http://jalopnik.com/the-eight-biggest-speeding-tickets-ever-issued-1108358708 http://jalopnik.com/the-eight-biggest-speeding-tickets-ever-... [2] http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48632 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax [4] http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2008/04/28/swiss-government-enacts-strict/ http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2008/04/28/swiss-governme...

scarmig 11y ago
>Pornography was illegal in Norway until 2006 [2], while the US (not a direct democracy or even close to one) has had its First Amendment since 1791. Is your claim here that pornography was legal in the United States since 1791, or something else? >A government that can do these things to you can also do much worse, and history suggests that it eventually will. All of the states you've mentioned have had that power and ability for at least a century. None of them are dystopian hellholes.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  (Shrug) My invocation of "mob rule" was called a straw man. I responded with concrete examples of policies that make no rational sense, and that could just as easily have arisen under a dictatorship or other harsh regime. If I hadn't identified the countries in question, it wouldn't be unreasonable to guess I was talking about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. And yes, in the plain language of our Constitution, pornography and every other product of the "press" has not been subject to legal oversight since 1791. We haven't always lived up to that ideal, but we do a better job of it than essentially anyone else including the supposedly-enlightened Nordic democracies. Here's my recent favorite act of humanist, secular "democracy": http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11494512 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti... Like I said, I don't see a qualitative difference between that and dictatorship. Feel free to mod me down if you disagree... but please do it with a mouse, and not a gun.