3 ms·

>> Democracy is not only about the will of majority, it's about protecting the rights of minorities, too. > No, it's not. It's about the majority getting its w

by miles 3y ago

>> Democracy is not only about the will of majority, it's about protecting the rights of minorities, too. > No, it's not. It's about the majority getting its way Majority Rule, Minority Rights https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/majority https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/majority How Does Democracy Protect Minority Rights? https://constitutionus.com/democracy/how-does-democracy-protect-minority-rights/ https://constitutionus.com/democracy/how-does-democracy-prot... Majority Rule and Minority Rights https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/majority-rule-and-minority-rights/ https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/majority-ru...

shiroiushi 3y ago
Wow, these links are ridiculously wrong and fantastical. There is no fundamental protection of human rights in a democracy, unless the majority votes for it somehow. Just look at the USA: it was a democracy since it started, and it had actual slavery for about 75 years until it fought a brutal civil war that ended it. Even after that, for another 100 years, Black people didn't have any kind of civil rights and were routinely abused and murdered. They couldn't even vote in most cases. How exactly did democracy protect them? Even today, there's enormous evidence of racist treatment of Black people (especially from the police). How many more years do they have to wait for this wonderful democratic system to protect them and treat them as equals?
- theGeatZhopa 3y ago
  That's true. But it's not about democracy, rather it's about the laws written down under a democracy. Two different things. You can have a democracy, but wrong laws. It's up to the legislative to find the proper laws. If it doesn't do it, the majority will choose another legislation members in elections and (may be) they will do it then.. If there's a bad treatment by the police, then it's a sign for bad police and weak laws. please, do not mix up democracy vs rights vs laws. Because the people of color also have same constitution rights - after majorities will forced this through election of legislative members, who introduced the change with laws, somewhen 50y ago. But the mindset of a few people hinders the change now (like the racists in the police..) and the laws are to weak to hinder them on doing so: the punishment is not scary enough.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    "Wrong" laws is a subjective judgment. If the laws are that "wrong", the people will vote for leaders who change them. That didn't happen in the US (until the late 1960s CRA) because those slavery and Jim Crow laws weren't "wrong" in the eyes of most of the electorate. Bad treatment by police is the same thing. Police have gotten away with that for ages because the majority supported it or at least tolerated it. >please, do not mix up democracy vs rights vs laws. Why not? They're inextricably entwined. People only have the rights that laws give them, and laws are made by elected leaders. >Because the people of color also have same constitution rights No, they don't. Black people had no such rights until after the Civil War. Black people in South Africa had no such rights either until the end of Apartheid. Constitutions only give the rights that the writers wanted.
    - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
      Your history knowledge is better then mine here, but, in each of your cases you assume the people get the laws they are given by the government and name some historical examples. What you see there is the evolution of democracy. In 1960th people of color had been granted access to universities. It was found anti constructional and the government was forced to change the law. So it's not the way you say, but likely, the people have basic rights and choose the government in elections. government, in turn, makes the laws (legislative), the high judges can judge these laws (Judiciary). And the police have to execute the laws (executive). They all control each other. If the majority chooses another party, so the laws can be changed again - if there's a majority for it in the readings. So.. I think all of your examples do not take into account, that all if the historical events you named are Preceded by the change of the "not so democratic" or regimes to peoples freshly elected ones. And that had been preceded by a strong voice of people raised. It's a important point. That's evolution of democracy.

by miles 3y ago

shiroiushi 3y ago

Wow, these links are ridiculously wrong and fantastical. There is no fundamental protection of human rights in a democracy, unless the majority votes for it somehow. Just look at the USA: it was a democracy since it started, and it had actual slavery for about 75 years until it fought a brutal civil war that ended it. Even after that, for another 100 years, Black people didn't have any kind of civil rights and were routinely abused and murdered. They couldn't even vote in most cases. How exactly did democracy protect them? Even today, there's enormous evidence of racist treatment of Black people (especially from the police). How many more years do they have to wait for this wonderful democratic system to protect them and treat them as equals?

theGeatZhopa 3y ago
That's true. But it's not about democracy, rather it's about the laws written down under a democracy. Two different things. You can have a democracy, but wrong laws. It's up to the legislative to find the proper laws. If it doesn't do it, the majority will choose another legislation members in elections and (may be) they will do it then.. If there's a bad treatment by the police, then it's a sign for bad police and weak laws. please, do not mix up democracy vs rights vs laws. Because the people of color also have same constitution rights - after majorities will forced this through election of legislative members, who introduced the change with laws, somewhen 50y ago. But the mindset of a few people hinders the change now (like the racists in the police..) and the laws are to weak to hinder them on doing so: the punishment is not scary enough.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  "Wrong" laws is a subjective judgment. If the laws are that "wrong", the people will vote for leaders who change them. That didn't happen in the US (until the late 1960s CRA) because those slavery and Jim Crow laws weren't "wrong" in the eyes of most of the electorate. Bad treatment by police is the same thing. Police have gotten away with that for ages because the majority supported it or at least tolerated it. >please, do not mix up democracy vs rights vs laws. Why not? They're inextricably entwined. People only have the rights that laws give them, and laws are made by elected leaders. >Because the people of color also have same constitution rights No, they don't. Black people had no such rights until after the Civil War. Black people in South Africa had no such rights either until the end of Apartheid. Constitutions only give the rights that the writers wanted.
  - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
    Your history knowledge is better then mine here, but, in each of your cases you assume the people get the laws they are given by the government and name some historical examples. What you see there is the evolution of democracy. In 1960th people of color had been granted access to universities. It was found anti constructional and the government was forced to change the law. So it's not the way you say, but likely, the people have basic rights and choose the government in elections. government, in turn, makes the laws (legislative), the high judges can judge these laws (Judiciary). And the police have to execute the laws (executive). They all control each other. If the majority chooses another party, so the laws can be changed again - if there's a majority for it in the readings. So.. I think all of your examples do not take into account, that all if the historical events you named are Preceded by the change of the "not so democratic" or regimes to peoples freshly elected ones. And that had been preceded by a strong voice of people raised. It's a important point. That's evolution of democracy.