4 ms·
If what you're saying is true, then the argument that this is inappropriate to democratic societies is also undermined: what rights the people have are entirely
by JasonFruit 4y ago
If what you're saying is true, then the argument that this is inappropriate to democratic societies is also undermined: what rights the people have are entirely determined by what their democratically-elected overlords grant them. The state has determined that this is appropriate; therefore, it is appropriate.
- epups 4y agoNo, in democratic societies you have the rule of law. This usually blocks incumbents from changing the rules as they wish. Yes of course natural rights don't really exist, but legal rights enforcing some of them are about as real as money.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> No, in democratic societies you have the rule of law. Democracy and legalism are orthogonal concepts, though both tend to be (rhetorically, if not always as much practically) ideals of liberal government.
- epups 4y agoI don't follow. Are you saying that subscribing to the notion that democratic societies have certain rights protected by law is legalism?
- dragonwriter 4y agoI'm saying that “democracy” and “a society governed by laws and not just the present mood of whoever is in charge” are different (and, indeed, somewhat opposed—which is why early liberal theorists have a lot negative to say about “democracy”—things). The particular blend where each limits the other that has come to define liberal democratic government is not the same as the broader concept of “democracy”.
- epups 4y agoI see - in that case I fully agree.