6 ms·

India for example was ruled by Oxford-educated westernized elites at the time. They didn’t speak for the Indian people. Democracy has nothing to do with “minor

India for example was ruled by Oxford-educated westernized elites at the time. They didn’t speak for the Indian people. Democracy has nothing to do with “minority rights.” That’s a fixation of liberalism, and it’s in tension with democracy. And in practice it’s a vehicle for liberals to overrule the democratic majority on almost everything, because everything can be framed in terms of “rights.” (See Sanders’ recent push to reframe healthcare as a right.) Constitutions and laws haven’t meant anything for a century. At one time you could argue a constitution was a way for a democratic super-majority to bind future transient majorities. But the prevailing American view of constitutional interpretation in the 20th century posited that “emanations from penumbras” was a source of constitutional law. That means that something that the people never ratified in the past could overrule democratic majorities in the present. “Liberal democracy” is nothing more than rule by philosopher kings, either judges or these days administrators. It’s not meaningfully democracy. It’s indistinguishable from Iran’s Guardian Council, which overrides democracy to ensure compliance with Islamic law. Same shit, different religion.

DrNosferatu 2y ago
That’s one big straw men assembly. I’ll get back to you, but I’ll say this for now: Liberal Democracy’s fusion of majority rule and minority rights isn’t elitist—it’s the hard-earned lesson of centuries of bloodshed. Dismissing it as “philosopher kings” ignores its core premise: *No one*, not even the majority, is above the law.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > Dismissing it as “philosopher kings” ignores its core premise: No one, not even the majority, is above the law. Someone must decide what the law is. Unless interpretation of the law is tightly cabined--and in practice it is not--that turns the interpreters of the law into philosopher kings that are above democracy.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    The "someone must decide" argument fundamentally misunderstands how constitutional democracy works. Constitutional courts don't freely "decide what the law is" - they interpret frameworks explicitly created and amendable through democratic processes. The U.S. Constitution wasn't handed down by philosopher kings - it was debated, voted on, and ratified by elected representatives. Its amendments reflect centuries of democratic evolution. Your position creates a false choice between unconstrained judicial power and unconstrained majority power. Real constitutional democracies have multiple checks and balances: Courts interpret within boundaries set by elected bodies. Legislatures can amend constitutions. Voters can change both. No single group becomes "philosopher kings." The "tightly cabined" standard you propose would paradoxically require exactly the kind of unaccountable super-authority you claim to oppose. Who would decide what counts as "tight" enough? Who would enforce those limits? Your solution creates the very problem you're trying to solve. Constitutional democracy isn't about putting anyone "above democracy" - it's about creating a stable system where democracy can actually function long-term. Without protected rights and independent courts, democracy quickly becomes nothing more than temporary tyranny of 50%+1. The history of successful democracies versus failed ones proves this isn't theoretical. Which systems have maintained stable democratic transitions of power over generations? The ones with strong constitutional frameworks and independent courts.
DrNosferatu 2y ago
The comparison to Iran's Guardian Council is particularly ludic…, better: olympically contortionistic. Constitutional courts interpret frameworks created through democratic processes, amendable by the same. Iran's clerics impose religious doctrine with no democratic foundation. Your concern about "everything framed as rights" ignores that rights frameworks actually limit government power rather than expand it. They create boundaries the state cannot cross, protecting citizens—including those who voted for the *losing* side. As for India's representation being dismissed as "Oxford-educated elites"—this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of decolonization movements. India's constitutional democracy was chosen deliberately after colonial rule, reflecting broad-based aspirations for self-determination. Were the Salt March events or the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, Oxford garden parties? The historical record is clear: societies without minority protections inevitably descend into conflict when majorities abuse power. Liberal democracy isn't perfect, but it's the only system that has consistently enabled peaceful transfers of power, protected basic freedoms, and fostered both stability and accountability over generations. Your argument isn't for "more democracy"—it's for temporary majority license without responsibility. True democracy requires institutions strong enough to survive their own processes. Aha - the attempt to discredit Bernie Sanders' "healthcare as a right" stance backfires spectacularly if we look, for example, to Portugal: Portugal enshrined healthcare as a constitutional right in 1976 after overthrowing a *fascist* dictatorship. Far from undermining democracy, this constitutional provision emerged directly from democratic revolution and enjoys overwhelming popular support across the political spectrum 50 years later. Portugal's healthcare system delivers universal coverage at half the cost of America's while achieving better outcomes. This constitutional right didn't emerge from "judicial fiat" but from democratic consensus, and its implementation occurs through elected parliaments, not courts. The Portuguese example demolishes your argument - it demonstrates how rights frameworks strengthen democracy rather than undermine it, creating stable systems that survive multiple transfers of power between left and right governments without threatening democratic foundations. Perhaps study actual functioning democracies before lecturing others about what democracy means? PS: Interesting how your critique of 'philosopher kings' only applies to judges protecting rights, never to leaders eliminating them.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > Constitutional courts interpret frameworks created through democratic processes, amendable by the same. Iran's clerics impose religious doctrine with no democratic foundation. There is no meaningful distinction between the two when you posit, as most of the American legal community does, that "emanations from penumbras" are a valid source of "law." The only difference is the particular axioms of the supposed universal law that are invoked to override the democratic will. > Your concern about "everything framed as rights" ignores that rights frameworks actually limit government power rather than expand it. They create boundaries the state cannot cross, protecting citizens—including those who voted for the losing side. Democracy isn't about limiting government. The whole point of democracy is to enable the majority to use the government to create the kind of society in which they want to live. And, of course, it doesn't just limit government. "Rights" are regularly invoked to force the public to enact programs or spend money on things the public does not want to support. > As for India's representation being dismissed as "Oxford-educated elites"—this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of decolonization movements. Decolonization movements were led by Oxford-educated elites in India against Oxford-educated elites in Britain. They never had widespread purchase from ordinary people: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial-india/ https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial.... For example, "secularism" as one of the four central pillars of Bangladesh's constitution was a western imposition. Actual Bangladeshis never supported it, and promptly made Islam the official religion.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

That’s one big straw men assembly. I’ll get back to you, but I’ll say this for now: Liberal Democracy’s fusion of majority rule and minority rights isn’t elitist—it’s the hard-earned lesson of centuries of bloodshed. Dismissing it as “philosopher kings” ignores its core premise: *No one*, not even the majority, is above the law.

rayiner 2y ago
> Dismissing it as “philosopher kings” ignores its core premise: No one, not even the majority, is above the law. Someone must decide what the law is. Unless interpretation of the law is tightly cabined--and in practice it is not--that turns the interpreters of the law into philosopher kings that are above democracy.
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  The "someone must decide" argument fundamentally misunderstands how constitutional democracy works. Constitutional courts don't freely "decide what the law is" - they interpret frameworks explicitly created and amendable through democratic processes. The U.S. Constitution wasn't handed down by philosopher kings - it was debated, voted on, and ratified by elected representatives. Its amendments reflect centuries of democratic evolution. Your position creates a false choice between unconstrained judicial power and unconstrained majority power. Real constitutional democracies have multiple checks and balances: Courts interpret within boundaries set by elected bodies. Legislatures can amend constitutions. Voters can change both. No single group becomes "philosopher kings." The "tightly cabined" standard you propose would paradoxically require exactly the kind of unaccountable super-authority you claim to oppose. Who would decide what counts as "tight" enough? Who would enforce those limits? Your solution creates the very problem you're trying to solve. Constitutional democracy isn't about putting anyone "above democracy" - it's about creating a stable system where democracy can actually function long-term. Without protected rights and independent courts, democracy quickly becomes nothing more than temporary tyranny of 50%+1. The history of successful democracies versus failed ones proves this isn't theoretical. Which systems have maintained stable democratic transitions of power over generations? The ones with strong constitutional frameworks and independent courts.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

The comparison to Iran's Guardian Council is particularly ludic…, better: olympically contortionistic. Constitutional courts interpret frameworks created through democratic processes, amendable by the same. Iran's clerics impose religious doctrine with no democratic foundation. Your concern about "everything framed as rights" ignores that rights frameworks actually limit government power rather than expand it. They create boundaries the state cannot cross, protecting citizens—including those who voted for the *losing* side. As for India's representation being dismissed as "Oxford-educated elites"—this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of decolonization movements. India's constitutional democracy was chosen deliberately after colonial rule, reflecting broad-based aspirations for self-determination. Were the Salt March events or the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, Oxford garden parties? The historical record is clear: societies without minority protections inevitably descend into conflict when majorities abuse power. Liberal democracy isn't perfect, but it's the only system that has consistently enabled peaceful transfers of power, protected basic freedoms, and fostered both stability and accountability over generations. Your argument isn't for "more democracy"—it's for temporary majority license without responsibility. True democracy requires institutions strong enough to survive their own processes. Aha - the attempt to discredit Bernie Sanders' "healthcare as a right" stance backfires spectacularly if we look, for example, to Portugal: Portugal enshrined healthcare as a constitutional right in 1976 after overthrowing a *fascist* dictatorship. Far from undermining democracy, this constitutional provision emerged directly from democratic revolution and enjoys overwhelming popular support across the political spectrum 50 years later. Portugal's healthcare system delivers universal coverage at half the cost of America's while achieving better outcomes. This constitutional right didn't emerge from "judicial fiat" but from democratic consensus, and its implementation occurs through elected parliaments, not courts. The Portuguese example demolishes your argument - it demonstrates how rights frameworks strengthen democracy rather than undermine it, creating stable systems that survive multiple transfers of power between left and right governments without threatening democratic foundations. Perhaps study actual functioning democracies before lecturing others about what democracy means? PS: Interesting how your critique of 'philosopher kings' only applies to judges protecting rights, never to leaders eliminating them.

rayiner 2y ago
> Constitutional courts interpret frameworks created through democratic processes, amendable by the same. Iran's clerics impose religious doctrine with no democratic foundation. There is no meaningful distinction between the two when you posit, as most of the American legal community does, that "emanations from penumbras" are a valid source of "law." The only difference is the particular axioms of the supposed universal law that are invoked to override the democratic will. > Your concern about "everything framed as rights" ignores that rights frameworks actually limit government power rather than expand it. They create boundaries the state cannot cross, protecting citizens—including those who voted for the losing side. Democracy isn't about limiting government. The whole point of democracy is to enable the majority to use the government to create the kind of society in which they want to live. And, of course, it doesn't just limit government. "Rights" are regularly invoked to force the public to enact programs or spend money on things the public does not want to support. > As for India's representation being dismissed as "Oxford-educated elites"—this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of decolonization movements. Decolonization movements were led by Oxford-educated elites in India against Oxford-educated elites in Britain. They never had widespread purchase from ordinary people: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial-india/ https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial.... For example, "secularism" as one of the four central pillars of Bangladesh's constitution was a western imposition. Actual Bangladeshis never supported it, and promptly made Islam the official religion.