3 ms·

No, the tyranny of the majority is NOT the safe thing to assume in a democratic system, or that that would be the right thing. Our systems are build to insulate

No, the tyranny of the majority is NOT the safe thing to assume in a democratic system, or that that would be the right thing. Our systems are build to insulate decision making from 51% splits. But we're not arguing that we're about to do something from a blank slate, the blank slate point is that just because society DOES something, doesn't mean that it WANTs to do something, for the same reasons as above we don't decide everything by referendum. The US numbers on single payer, medicaid for all, drug laws and etc are miles away from the policy, your argument is like looking at marijuana being illegal in most states a few years ago and using it as evidence that they want it to be illegal.

jacquesm 8y ago
You now have 22 posts in this thread (and counting), it seems you are very much upset for having to pay for something that you do not feel that you benefit from. But if you consider that you too are a product of the societies that chose to support children and if you accept that once children are there it helps to have them well nourished, healthy and smart then maybe you'll come to the conclusion that your position is a pretty selfish one. So when you write 'we' you can substitute 'I' and be closer to the truth, and you don't need to drag in a whole pile of other stuff that is hypothetical rather than real, why ignore the evidence in front of your eyes if you have it? Hypotheticals are great to argue about things for which we do not have data, they suck at improving over reality when we do. As or the tyranny of the majority not being the safe thing to assume in a democratic system: the democratic system pretty much codifies the tyranny of the majority, with a few exceptions about forming coalitions where some give-and-take allows a small minority to score some points because they can be the swing vote. But if you want to see the tyranny of the majority at work you need to look no further than that US that you write about.
- zimablue 8y ago
  Thanks for counting, if you'd read them you'd see that I've addressed your points already and you aren't moving the debate on. To reiterate though, supporting parents with a holiday is not the same as supporting children. My dad taking time off doesn't make me healthy, well nourished or smart. Healthy is healthcare, well nourished is money and only god can do smart. Immigration is an alternative to domestic population growth. Domestic population growth or even maintenance is not a positive or necessary outcome. There are alternative approaches such as state-funded childcare or a generally different work culture that would be more effective and fairer to help native-born children. Hypotheticals aren't a silly debating tactic, they're an important component of logic and reason, see the discovery of SR. You clearly do not understand the concept of the tyranny of the majority, it's not what this thread is about but since you asked... The tyranny of the majority refers to the problem with voting systems where anything that 51% agrees to, no matter how unjust, will pass, especially where it harms the 10%. The reason why it does not apply to western democratic systems: Major changes can require supermajorities. Constutions and rights laws restrict the range of possible laws that can be passed. Citizens do not vote directly on outcomes but elect a representative who is expected to consider things more deeply on their behalf.
  - lovich 8y ago
    You are making a claim that I don't think has substance. You keep susbstituting "holiday" for "leave". It is not a holiday to take care of a baby, it's work. You are not going to be traveling to nice places or drinking it up. You'll be sleep deprived and busy the whole time because babies are incapable of taking care of themselves. You don't necessarily need to be dealing with the baby 24/7 but someone needs to be available to react to the babies needs or their suicidal tendencies of trying to touch/eat every dangerous thing they see. Our current setup puts this entirely on the wife and leaves the husband out of it. Requiring paternal leave would both equalize make and female employees in the eyes of employers _and_ allow for the parents to provide care to the child without driving themselves into poor health or depression

jacquesm 8y ago

You now have 22 posts in this thread (and counting), it seems you are very much upset for having to pay for something that you do not feel that you benefit from. But if you consider that you too are a product of the societies that chose to support children and if you accept that once children are there it helps to have them well nourished, healthy and smart then maybe you'll come to the conclusion that your position is a pretty selfish one. So when you write 'we' you can substitute 'I' and be closer to the truth, and you don't need to drag in a whole pile of other stuff that is hypothetical rather than real, why ignore the evidence in front of your eyes if you have it? Hypotheticals are great to argue about things for which we do not have data, they suck at improving over reality when we do. As or the tyranny of the majority not being the safe thing to assume in a democratic system: the democratic system pretty much codifies the tyranny of the majority, with a few exceptions about forming coalitions where some give-and-take allows a small minority to score some points because they can be the swing vote. But if you want to see the tyranny of the majority at work you need to look no further than that US that you write about.

zimablue 8y ago
Thanks for counting, if you'd read them you'd see that I've addressed your points already and you aren't moving the debate on. To reiterate though, supporting parents with a holiday is not the same as supporting children. My dad taking time off doesn't make me healthy, well nourished or smart. Healthy is healthcare, well nourished is money and only god can do smart. Immigration is an alternative to domestic population growth. Domestic population growth or even maintenance is not a positive or necessary outcome. There are alternative approaches such as state-funded childcare or a generally different work culture that would be more effective and fairer to help native-born children. Hypotheticals aren't a silly debating tactic, they're an important component of logic and reason, see the discovery of SR. You clearly do not understand the concept of the tyranny of the majority, it's not what this thread is about but since you asked... The tyranny of the majority refers to the problem with voting systems where anything that 51% agrees to, no matter how unjust, will pass, especially where it harms the 10%. The reason why it does not apply to western democratic systems: Major changes can require supermajorities. Constutions and rights laws restrict the range of possible laws that can be passed. Citizens do not vote directly on outcomes but elect a representative who is expected to consider things more deeply on their behalf.
- lovich 8y ago
  You are making a claim that I don't think has substance. You keep susbstituting "holiday" for "leave". It is not a holiday to take care of a baby, it's work. You are not going to be traveling to nice places or drinking it up. You'll be sleep deprived and busy the whole time because babies are incapable of taking care of themselves. You don't necessarily need to be dealing with the baby 24/7 but someone needs to be available to react to the babies needs or their suicidal tendencies of trying to touch/eat every dangerous thing they see. Our current setup puts this entirely on the wife and leaves the husband out of it. Requiring paternal leave would both equalize make and female employees in the eyes of employers _and_ allow for the parents to provide care to the child without driving themselves into poor health or depression