4 ms·
That's a really good point. I hadn't thought about it in those terms before. An issue that I see is what to do with groups who are two small to achieve their
by harimau777 7y ago
That's a really good point. I hadn't thought about it in those terms before.
An issue that I see is what to do with groups who are two small to achieve their aims via democracy but large enough that they can cause unrest.
The textbook answer would be that the constitution places limits on democracy in order to protect the rights of the minority. However, looking at current American culture it seems like that hasn't worked since society outside of government is still free to punish minority views and lifestyles.
- gwright 7y agoWhat do you mean by "punish minority views"? An important component of the classical notion of "state" power is that the government has a monopoly on the use of force. When coupled with the limits to the power of the majority (i.e. individual rights and limited government), holders of minority views should be protected from "punishment" that involves any use of force related to their protected rights.
- harimau777 7y agoThings like losing a job, being excluded from community organizations, or just generally shunned by society. While things like gender, sex, race, and religion are often protected; things like political views, worldview, and way of life generally are not.
- gwright 7y agoThat just sounds like normal consequences. I don't think it is reasonable to think that the government is going to protect you from the private-actor consequences of your "political views, worldview, and way of life". To do so would require the government to become an arbiter of those things, which would be antithetical to the protection of individual rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and in general individual liberty.