4 ms·

I listened to that last one.. It tells me how tenuous local government really is, and how usurpation of local government isn't really that terribly difficult.

by kefka 10y ago

I listened to that last one.. It tells me how tenuous local government really is, and how usurpation of local government isn't really that terribly difficult. Yeah, in that case it was Hasidic Jews. I'm shocked that there wasn't more anti-semetic actions, primarily because the Jews there were trying to turn the local educational system into one for them. But I digress; it would, and has been the same for Christian control as well. So to discuss further; how does one prevent takeovers of simple majority trouncing the significant minority (technically 50% - 1) with onerous laws? How would one make a government that is resistant to takeovers, and still maintain democratic principles? Are those 2 ideas incompatible?

kombucha2 10y ago
>Are those 2 ideas incompatible? Well that is that the point of a republic/representative democracy/federalism?
brownbat 10y ago
The Federalist Papers have a few good ideas on this. Next best thing to finding a philosopher king is to try to create lots of warring interest groups that prevent each other from doing much at all. Or maybe make everything take supermajorities... In a small setting like a school district, it's not clear there's any way to protect the rights of a minor subset of the population without simply granting them disproportionate power and making the other subset of the population the maligned group. If group A wants x, and group B wants y, then you can either solve it by majoritarian or anti-majoritarian rules. Depending on the issue, I want majorities to decide in some cases, and not on others. I don't feel like issues of slavery, for example, are appropriate democratic questions. You could put a special court on top of the structure with the goal of looking out a sort of "Rawlsian fairness," trying to seek the outcome that both parties would agree to if they were both spending some time in each others' shoes. I'll admit I don't know what the fair resolution should be in a school district where a majority of parents prefer no school taxes and no public schools, just that people seem to get pretty unfairly hurt as this one unfolded.

by kefka 10y ago

kombucha2 10y ago

>Are those 2 ideas incompatible? Well that is that the point of a republic/representative democracy/federalism?

brownbat 10y ago

The Federalist Papers have a few good ideas on this. Next best thing to finding a philosopher king is to try to create lots of warring interest groups that prevent each other from doing much at all. Or maybe make everything take supermajorities... In a small setting like a school district, it's not clear there's any way to protect the rights of a minor subset of the population without simply granting them disproportionate power and making the other subset of the population the maligned group. If group A wants x, and group B wants y, then you can either solve it by majoritarian or anti-majoritarian rules. Depending on the issue, I want majorities to decide in some cases, and not on others. I don't feel like issues of slavery, for example, are appropriate democratic questions. You could put a special court on top of the structure with the goal of looking out a sort of "Rawlsian fairness," trying to seek the outcome that both parties would agree to if they were both spending some time in each others' shoes. I'll admit I don't know what the fair resolution should be in a school district where a majority of parents prefer no school taxes and no public schools, just that people seem to get pretty unfairly hurt as this one unfolded.