Thought Provoking, isn't it? We've been raised with the notion that the power of the people is supreme. But is it right? Besides . . . I'm reminded of George Carlin's comments about the average person . . . and about how stupid is the average person? And then . . . recall that half the people are even MORE stupid than that!! All this as we near what will clearly be another devisive election cycle here in the US! Molding opinions . . . courting votes from the . . . . uhhhhh . . . intellectually challenged . . . outright lies and deceptions . . . all coming to the forefront.
Why should the majority rule? They have been wrong time and again throughout history. Being the majority doesn't make you wise . . . or right. In fact, genius and inspiration are always initially a minority which, once established and accepted become a majority. I imagined that should be a stimulating and controversial topic!
What if the majority, for example . . . wanted to continue to rely on fossil fuels? What if the majority was more concerned with their cars, SUVs and ability to skip mass, public transportation?? Suppose that was more important than global warming to them?
Isn't that what we find ourselves facing now. Our leaders are there to do the bidding of the electors, the majority of whom are apathetic and uneducated about at least some of the issues facing us.
Gustavo Moreno is a wonderful man. He is the father of the lady our son married. Born in Mexico, he legally immigrated, owns his own business, and has become a US Citizen. He did it the right way (as they say).
Now, we have here, In Southern California, a huge movement. Illegally arrived immigrants have swollen our population. Many supported by family here . . . and a huge amount of empathy from the majority of the Hispanic population. By the way . . . the Hispanic population is becoming a majority of the entire population here in LA too. According to the 2000 Federal census, the racial makeup of the city was 46.9% White, 12.0% African American, 10.0% Asian, 1.0% Native American, 25.9% from other races, and 5.2% from two or more races. 46.5% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. As time is passing there seems to be increasing Hispanic immigration due to comfort and familiarity with a like minded culture . . . Suppose a majority wanted to give citizenship to the new arrivals. Hmmmmmm. Should we just do it??
And then consider that throughout History there has been huge blunders by the majority. Now, before you fall off the edge of the Earth (herein lie monsters) . . . or decide the Earth MUST be the center of the Universe . . . (You just HAVE to pity poor Galileo) . . . because the majority has decreed it so . . . I would love to know your thoughts on this. Why should the Majority Rule?
Doyle I
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 61
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
It's not a question of Does the majority rule. I think a lot of people believe it does . . . but more a question of Why Should They? And now . . . is it a balancing act between corporate cash and people power?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
We have been living under minority rule for far to long.
I think a reworking consideration of the similarities and anomalies between the old and current systems might be very thought provoking in and of itself. Intriguing analogy.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I blame President Clinton! :P
Just kidding, though he did get blamed for almost everything from murder to sex by my conservative friends. Oh Wait . . . he was a 'Serial Killer'! The worst part is meeting people who believed it . . . and their counterparts who believe GW Bush knocked down the WTC. These people all get equal votes . . . right next to you, me and the President of Havard!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"What is right Phaedrus, and what is not right? And need we ask others to tell us these things?" -- Phaedrus.
You . . . deep inside . . . already know. You are free Jean!!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947
"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. "
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time."
E. B. White (1899 - 1985), New Yorker, July 3, 1944
Corporations . . . That's what unites them. A legal entity which allows people to get together and take actions for which they need not bear responsibility. Loyalty restricted to investors only, thank you very much.
So WM H . . . you're basically saying (if I'm not mistaken) that the majority should rule because you can't find a better option?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
It is also noteworthy that in spite of the B of R's granting us the right to "petition the government......", there is no constitutional provision for referendum or ballot initiative.
At the time the constitution was enacted, there was no "voting rights act" and many were denied the right to vote. For the most part, eligible voters consisted of "white men of property". Women, Blacks (the 4/7's clause) and the poor were routinely excluded. So government reflected the will of the majority of a distinct minorty of the citizenry and continues in that vein today.
So, I guess what I am saying is the majority has never ruled and I am not expecting that to change anytime soon.
Remember, if the majority ruled, Al Gore would have been president in 2000.
Still . . . Why should the majority rule? You are saying basically they don't. Can I assume you believe they should not as well?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
NO.
I have always liked the Churchill quote I posted above. While democracy does not always work well, it does seem to work better than the alternatives.
I think our founding fathers did a remarkable job in formulating our constitution and demonstrated remarkable foresight in some areas. I do not think they envisioned the role corporations have come to play in contemporary america and I think they would find it disturbing.
Lincoln's description of "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" is rapidly being replaced by a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.
I would never advocate for a completely unrestrained majority rule. With adequate constraints such as the bill of rights to protect the minority, then yes, majority rule is the best mechanism we have.
Note: Many surveys show that majorities of americans would willingly weaken the B of R as it is written. This terrifies me.
Now allow me to add a twist. Who sets the limits? A minority of people set the limits to the power of the majority, right? Just provoking some thought!!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The constitution was written by a few, debated and signed by a few more but ultimately ratified by the majority through their elected representatives, the legislatures of the several states. So you would have to conclude that the majority of the enfranchised citizenry ultimately adopted the limits we live under.
A constitutional convention today would be a frightening thing and would almost certainly result in a reduction of enumerated rights and abridgement of others.
So a minority (in terms of numbers) have written a limit to the majority's powers . . . you see? Then factor in elected representatives . . . . they represent a majority too . . . . say 51% of 4,000 people - vote FOR the constitution (one vote) and another representative has 51% of 6,000 vote FOR it (two votes). And 51% of 20,000 vote NO (one No vote). It passes . . . as You certainly know . . . with a majority of the votes (2:1) and a minority of the people!
I know I'm playing Devil's advocate a bit since I think they did a SUPERB job and agree with those limits . . . but the law of the land we live in was written, I think you might have to admit, by a minority considering the current population levels. I cannot imagine it's possible anymore to pass even an Ammendment (Like the ERA which called for -God Help us all- Equal Rights for Women)!
Thoughts anyone?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Even in the most direct democratic endeavors, say a meeting of a civic group conducted under Robert's Rules, a single individual makes a motion. Another individual may choose to second the motion forcing it to a vote. The language of the motion is chosen by the original mover. The membership can vote to agree, or disagree. If the motion fails, a new motion, with altered language can be introduced.
It is the same with a ballot initiative or any piece of legislation introduced before a legislature or congress. An individual or relatively small group of individuals selects the language, or defines the constraints, and the rest of us simply get to agree or disagree or abstain.
".... but the law of the land we live in was written, I think you might have to admit, by a minority considering the current population levels. "
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated, "....., Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government'
What emerges paramount is not that words of the constitution were written by a few individuals but that the ideas embraced by those words continue to reflect the will of the majority.
Can I assume also that revolution is Constitutionally protected? (Intentions of the framers.)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Yes.
Can I assume also that revolution is Constitutionally protected?
Surely you jest. The constitution certainly protects political oppostion to any policy or practice, stopping short of armed revolt. The signers of the D of I were all committing treason and they knew it and many experienced great hardship because of it. Faced with a similar situation, I suspect that they would expect no less of us today.
"— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . . "
So the original intention of the framers was that once deemed necessary, it is a duty to revolt. Clearly, our judicial system considers the intentions of the lawmakers to take precedence over the actual wording. This has been affirmed in case after case. So, while they may believe revolution is acceptable given a justifiable reason . . . they also believed that the penalties exacted for that position would necessarily prevent the arbitrary use of that method.
All that is not defined is the "justifiable cause" that might precipitate this . . . or who might be making that choice . . . full circle, I suspect, to leaders who can market a message to enough of a majority to instill their will.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Once again, returning to a long ago history class, we were taught that roughly 1/3 of the colonists supported the revolution, 1/3 opposed and 1/3 content to remain on the sidelines. History, and American History in particular are full of examples of a committed and determined minority ultimately claiming victory.
I love that you introduce "marketing" into this discussion. The presidential primary season is ramping up and already the image consultants, polls and focus groups are having their effect on the packaging of the contenders.
Imagine yourself an entrepreneur in contemporary America. Which would you rather be selling; A good product with poor marketing or a flawed product with good marketing? Which would be more likely to fill your bank account?
"The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid." Art Spander
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
At this point, I am not even sure the question makes sense. A majority of what? The citizenry as a whole? This would include children, the infirm and incompetant.
Eligible voters? Even presidential elections only bring out 65% of eligible voters. Nothing would ever pass, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Participating voters? With a voter turnout of 60%, decisions would be made based on the approval of 30% plus 1.
We are back where we started, "majority rule" sounds good as a principal but upon implementation is quickly found to be impracticle.
And lastly, before we leave the realm of semantics, the best we can hope for is majority approval. Implementation always ends up in the hands of an (elected, preferably) executive. Majorities approve, executives govern.
Tim: Sounds like a 'No".
WM: Agreed . . . If, in effect, you're saying it's not possible for a true majority rule. Typical of Philosophy . . . there may be no final answer. I have, though, enjoyed the discussion.
Sreve: Ooooh. Not sure I agree. In essence . . . the majority should rule because you have no better alternative? Ok. But majority means what? Not 4 year olds, surely, included. Also not sure that the majority of citizens are irresponsible. Republics aren't dictatorships . . . couldn't they be an alternative??
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I'm stipulating the worst "majority" here, such as we have seen over the past 6 years (at least). Even with the worst majority, there is always a chance to recover, possibly as we began to do last November. At worst, majority rule is no worse than a dictatorship, and can really only go up from there.
Doyle: "But majority means what?"
Registered voters, who actually vote.
Doyle: "...not sure that the majority of citizens are irresponsible."
Again, I'm stipulating the worst "majority". That said, I would guess that with about half the voters not voting, and most of the rest not really understanding issues (because issues are obfuscated rather than discussed openly), I'm not sure that the majority of citizens are responsible.
Doyle: "Republics aren't dictatorships . . . couldn't they be an alternative??"
Republics are a form of majority rule, since the majority can remove its representatives. They are not direct majority rule, but a form of it. If you are defining "majoriy rule" as the majority votes on every single issue, then that would be an absurd impracticality.
But you did not address my main point, which is that majority rule is the only context, which CAN produce responsible citizens.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I am totally in favor of this..........As long as the benevolent monarch is.........ME!
I couldn't disagree more! Subjects have no say. Citizens do - if they choose to be informed and vote. Subjects are obedient to the will of a monarch. Citizens can be responsible or apathetic. This is no matter of semantics!
Doyle: "...is that preferable to a best case scenario under another method?"
Name one - other than a benevolent monarch.
Doyle: "If the majority of people voted to ammend the Constitution of the US....
Those are big IFs.
....Majority rule can overstep."
Certainly it can. It can also correct - like science does. And it has - witness our own civil war, women's sufferage, civil rights movement. And, it is more likely to correct than a monarchy. The Catholic Church is a religious monarchy. Some might even say a benevolent monarchy. How many times has it corrected in its 2000 year history? Are Catholics better off for it one way or another?
I think it is not justifiable to compare the worst majority to the best monarchy and claim that monarchy, as a system, is better than majority. You are at least as likely to have a bastard for a monarch as you are to have bastards in the majority. I will maintain my main point. Majority rule - democracy or republic, representative government - as a system is superior because it gives individuals the opportunity to be responsible, actively participating citizens. I do not know another system that does that.
First . . . saying "Big Ifs" is not an answer to my hypothetical question. The Socratic method relies on extreme examples to test principles and their boundaries.
"Subjects have NO say" Tell that to our founding fathers . . . subjects to the King of England. They had something to say.
The majority can correct. That doesn't mean they will. And if they're wrong and they don't? The Catholic church is not a monarchy. Would Catholics be better if they voted on religious dogma? Would a majority vote there make it right?
I did not EVER claim that monarchy was better than democracy. I simply postulated a what if . . .
I have no idea what you mean by "bastards in the majority".
"I do not know another system that does that." Does this mean that you believe it has problems but you have no alternative? A legitimate point . . . but is it what you mean?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
So does the ACLU.
Doyle: "Tell that to our founding fathers . . . subjects to the King of England. They had something to say."
Yes. They rejected the monarchy and established representative democracy.
Doyle: "The majority can correct. That doesn't mean they will."
My point is that the majority has corrected more consistently than the Catholic Church. It is more capable of correction.
Doyle: "The Catholic church is not a monarchy."
It is as a religious institution. Just ask female Catholics. Additionally, the Catholic Church was once the Roman Empire - the Roman Catholic Church, that is. It wielded extreme power in a most brutal way.
Doyle: "Would Catholics be better if they voted on religious dogma? Would a majority vote there make it right?"
Can you speak of "right" with regard to religious dogma? People have individual experiences of a religious or spiritual nature. The fact that the Catholic Church often regarded those experiences as heresy - that was the basis of the Protestant Rebellion. At any rate, what does dogma have to do with being "right"? I could say much more about this, but it would be too far off topic.
Doyle: "I did not EVER claim that monarchy was better than democracy. I simply postulated a what if . . . "
Monarchy has been the only alternative to democracy that has been discussed, and I have rejected that as even possibly superior - despite the obvious, potential shortcomings of a "bad" majority.
Doyle: "I have no idea what you mean by 'bastards in the majority'".
Just this: "The majority can correct. That doesn't mean they will. And if they're wrong and they don't?"
Doyle: "Does this mean that you believe it has problems but you have no alternative?"
Yes. And I asked if you do - other than a benevolent monarchy, which you state you have not postulated as an alternative. What would be your alternative to representative government?
There is something more, though. Representative government in the U.S. has been a major draw for people all over the world. Today, we are lazy in the U.S., as the percentage of voters that do not participate shows. We are uninformed, and we make excuses for that (we don't have time to pay attention, and we diagnose lack of attention as a "disorder").
There seems to be a disturbing tendency (IMO) of you summarizing me inaccurately and misquoting me. There also seems to be a tendency to avoid the questions entirely. It's fine if you don't want to answer a question or choose not to answer a question or even if you don't understand one. I suspect your passion for this topic and what appears to me to be your suspicion that I'm somehow anti-democracy, have clouded your thinking.
Some examples:
"Doyle: 'The Socratic method relies on extreme examples to test principles and their boundaries.'
(Your Response) So does the ACLU. "
Ummm . . . so does my Uncle Dan. I was explaining why I used the extreme example and your response was that the American Civil Liberties Union also uses the Socratic method. Of course, so does the US Attorney General . . . it is inherent in the practice of law. So this response makes no sense to me.
"Doyle: 'Tell that to our founding fathers . . . subjects to the King of England. They had something to say.'
(Your Response)Yes..." So we seem to agree that subjects Do have a say. :)
You:"I think it is not justifiable to compare the worst majority to the best monarchy and claim that monarchy, as a system, is better than majority.
(My Response) I did not EVER claim that monarchy was better than democracy. I simply postulated a what if . . .
(Your reply) Monarchy has been the only alternative to democracy that has been discussed"
This is another example. You state I made a claim and it was not true. Rather than simply look and see, you make another invalid argument . . . fascists, dictators, republicans, corporations and lobbyists have all cropped up in this string. Not just monarchy. Even if you were right that only Monarchy was discussed . . . that doesn't mean I said what you claim I said.
"Yes. And I asked if you do - other than a benevolent monarchy, which you state you have not postulated as an alternative."
I must have missed this one. Where did I ever say I have not postulated this as an alternative? I DID say "I did not EVER claim that monarchy was better than democracy. I simply postulated a what if . . . " which suggests you have made another inaccurate statement.
The Holy Roman Empire became "Holy Roman" by accepting Catholicism. The Catholic Church was not previously the Holy Roman Empire and however you choose to spin this they are not a monarchy. Heres a great example of my point. YOU called it a monarchy. I objected to that since it is a fallacy. You responded with:
"It is as a religious institution. Just ask female Catholics."
What????? A religious church??? Who'd have thought it??? Wow! Can't get over how I learn something new every day!!! THANK YOU! Come on now . . . let's be fair. We both know the church is a religious institution (and by the way, you can ask the male Catholics too)! You make it sound like I somehow said it wasn't!
Obfuscation. Plain and simple.
As to your last statement . . . I disagree only with "We are uninformed, and we make excuses for that ..." . I think we're more deliberately mis-informed than uninformed . . . though this may make YOUR point since it seems to be an excuse too. :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I have tried to respond to your question: Why Should the Majority Rule? My view is that it's better than monarchy, (or dictatorship, corporation, autocracy, oligarchy, facism, communism, or national socialism - not that you have present such a position).
I think this position is best, as I said, because even if a majority (by which I mean democracy, republic, representative government) is wrong in the short run, it has a greater potential to self-correct than do the others (I gave examples). I do not pretend it is ideal or optimal.
Re: Catholicism - I have extensive experience with the Catholic Church. I went to Catholic schools, 2 years of seminary, and an additional two years of monastery. I worked 5 years for a Church social service agency.Please understand I am not spinning on this. It is a top-down, authoritarian institution. It has a history of extensive political power, which it wielded with great brutality at one time. This was not unlike the Roman Empire. I don't think the Roman Empire "adopted" Catholicism. I think it "co-opted" Catholicism. Obviously, the Inquisition had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. Neither did burning people to death. That's the kind of thing Rome did. The Catholic Church lost political power when it was challenged by Europe's monarchies during the Protestant Reformation - and by science during the Enlightenment. I understand your point that it was not technically a monarchy. Please understand mine. It behaved like one. I am presenting a point of view - not spinning or obfuscating.
Doyle: "I think we're more deliberately mis-informed than uninformed . . . though this may make YOUR point since it seems to be an excuse too."
No, I don't think that's an excuse. I agree, we are misinformed. That is not mutually exclusive to being uninformed. I cannot tell you how many people tell me they don't have time, it doesn't make any difference anyway, "they're all a bunch of crooks," etc. Information there if you look for it. But you're right - misinformation is the "easy pickins".
Regards,
Steve :)
That being said . . . I DO think you have taken some liberties in summarizing and attributing that summary as a restatement of my position. Examples of the attributions I object to are in my comment which immediately preceeds your last one (like saying I "claim that monarchy, as a system, is better than majority.") If you tell me this is not intentionally inaccurate then it's fine . . . . and I accept that.
Without getting into the History of the Catholic Church and the Roman Empire (Kinda' off topic - though it sounds intriguing) the Church, by definition, is not a monarchy. Hitler's Nazi Reich was also a top down, authoritarian, system. Such systems are simply not monarchys. Your church example, discussed as a system, is a Theocracy. It is a valid point of comparison in it's own right . . . I never restricted this conversation to Monarchy and anyone is welcome to use their own examples . . . particularly if you feel more comfortable with the Catholic example as you clearly have some degree of information about it.
Your assertion about the Catholic church behaving like a monarchy is interesting. I will have to reflect on that . . . I'm not sure that the differences are so minor . . . I . . . I-I-I . . . . uhhhhh . . . I think I'll reflect (as I said).
Up to a challenge? How about you think for a bit and list for me the major differences between the Catholic Church and a Monarchy.
I will try to come up with and list the similarities.
Should force us both to consider this from a new perspective, eh?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I don't think I'm saying YOU'RE taking that position. Honestly, I don't know what position you're taking. You challenge my position with hypotheticals, and I think I'm arguing against your hypotheticals. If I'm not clear on that, I apologize.
Doyle: "How about you think for a bit and list for me the major differences between the Catholic Church and a Monarchy."
I don't know if I would even be able to do that, but I'll try. I appreciate you considering my point about the Church and Empire. I agree it is off topic, except as an example.
Later.
Steve.
I have very much enjoyed our 'spirited' conversations. Thanks!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The monarch is selected by progeny or force. The pope is selected by an "election" by a limited, select (selected by previous popes) group of cardinals. So, incestuous as it is, it's not progeny.
I guess you could say the pope is not the "highest authority," though he is referred to as the "representative" of the highest authority on earth. He is also subject to Church law, though he is "infallible" on matters of faith and dogma. I suppose the monarch is absolute.
Those are two differences that come to mind. I'll keep thinking about it.
Pomp & Circumstance . . . ceremony . . . authority from God . . . reliant on others for defense. Also - people sworn to protect the office (position, etc.) with their lives. Issuance of edicts and proclamations without need for validation. Still thinking.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~