3 ms·

Yes, because class conflict totally started with OWS. I wasn't aware that I had to mention the entire history of class conflict in order to note a strong simil

by crusso 13y ago

Yes, because class conflict totally started with OWS. I wasn't aware that I had to mention the entire history of class conflict in order to note a strong similarity with a recent movement. fantasies perpetuated on our generation is the idea that there are simple policy prescriptions that are "good for everyone. Ironic that you say that since in political threads you generally defend a one-size-fits-all, overpowering American government. If you really believed what you said then I'd think you'd be all for Freedom and individual Liberty. Instead, I view you as an opponent of those things in favor of the State.

rayiner 13y ago
Democracy is emphatically not a "one-size-fits-all" system. It a system designed to maximize the prosperity of a majority of the people, often to the detriment of this or the other minority group. I like freedom and individual liberty just fine, but I think the "default rule" should prioritize executing the will of the majority through the popularly-elected government. I think every instance in which a court holds unconstitutional some validly passed law of Congress or some program of the President that enjoys popular support is an instance of the courts telling the majority what it can and cannot do, and I think such events should be the exception, not the rule. The courts should seek to give effect to the will of the democratically-elected branches if it is possible. There is nothing inconsistent with that view and the recognition that a minority of people who hold a majority of the wealth have incentives that do not necessarily align with the interests of the majority. Indeed, it is entirely consistent with that view, based on the basic belief that the purpose of government is to maximize the prosperity of the majority, with the protection of the rights of individuals being an important but secondary concern.

by crusso 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

Democracy is emphatically not a "one-size-fits-all" system. It a system designed to maximize the prosperity of a majority of the people, often to the detriment of this or the other minority group. I like freedom and individual liberty just fine, but I think the "default rule" should prioritize executing the will of the majority through the popularly-elected government. I think every instance in which a court holds unconstitutional some validly passed law of Congress or some program of the President that enjoys popular support is an instance of the courts telling the majority what it can and cannot do, and I think such events should be the exception, not the rule. The courts should seek to give effect to the will of the democratically-elected branches if it is possible. There is nothing inconsistent with that view and the recognition that a minority of people who hold a majority of the wealth have incentives that do not necessarily align with the interests of the majority. Indeed, it is entirely consistent with that view, based on the basic belief that the purpose of government is to maximize the prosperity of the majority, with the protection of the rights of individuals being an important but secondary concern.