Opposing the Tyranny of the Majority Freedom Plus 180.
The term the “the tyranny of the majority” is a perfect example of the double speak that George Orwell wrote about in the novel 1984. Elitists usually use the same confidence game again and again. First they claim that something bad is possible. Then they argue that it would be good to prevent this bad thing from happening. Then they come up with a nice sounding fallacious solution that hurts the country and helps them. The idea that we should give up our freedom because of “the tyranny of majority” is a perfect example.
The argument against democracy starts with the claim that it is logically possible that the majority might vote for something that would deny some people their basic rights. Then the next step is to say wouldn’t it be nice of someone stopped such acts. Their solution is to have unelected judges who rule for life make the final decisions on everything.
It’s kind of like the old time South American dictatorships where unelected presidents ruled for life; unfettered by the whims of the people. Why have democracy at all if judges make better rulers? What happens in general (not always) is the courts do not prevent the majority from violating the rights of others but instead add to the abuse by violating rights of people on their own with out help from the majority. The Dred Scott decision which took away the right of the people to ban slavery is typical of the court. As is court support for sending Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, protecting criminals from society and using eminent domain to build a shopping malls.
The fall back argument that opponents of democracy use is they just want to prevent the people from making rash decisions. The idea is people will get excited and do something stupid. First of all the argument is really the same as above because the courts don’t slow thing down they stop them completely at least for the generation that they are in power. Moreover the idea that half the electorate, 55 million people, will change faster then half of the number of members on the Supreme Court, 5 Supreme Court Justices is absurd. The courts are the ones who tend to act rashly not the people. In fact we are saddled with precipitant ruling all the time like gay marriage and abortion. The majority was moving in the direction of making abortion legal and making gay marriage or civil unions legal but the court jumped the gun and strengthened the opposition. Of course some people will say those rulings were correct. Which means that supporters of an all powerful judiciary don’t want to slow things up they want to speed them up?
Such people only care about getting their way even if it means subverting democracy and forcing their views on the majority. A majoriety that they don't respect of care about. They like the idea of a dictatorship when the dictator agrees with them but oppose it when the dictator turns on them. When the Supreme Court gave George Bush the election over Al Gore, the same people who supported unlimited judicial power decided that the courts were too powerful. I wonder what the supporters of abortion will say if the Supreme Court rules that abortion is murder and the majority cannot pass laws making it legal. When people take away the freedoms of others they take away their own freedom as well.
The argument against democracy starts with the claim that it is logically possible that the majority might vote for something that would deny some people their basic rights. Then the next step is to say wouldn’t it be nice of someone stopped such acts. Their solution is to have unelected judges who rule for life make the final decisions on everything.
It’s kind of like the old time South American dictatorships where unelected presidents ruled for life; unfettered by the whims of the people. Why have democracy at all if judges make better rulers? What happens in general (not always) is the courts do not prevent the majority from violating the rights of others but instead add to the abuse by violating rights of people on their own with out help from the majority. The Dred Scott decision which took away the right of the people to ban slavery is typical of the court. As is court support for sending Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, protecting criminals from society and using eminent domain to build a shopping malls.
The fall back argument that opponents of democracy use is they just want to prevent the people from making rash decisions. The idea is people will get excited and do something stupid. First of all the argument is really the same as above because the courts don’t slow thing down they stop them completely at least for the generation that they are in power. Moreover the idea that half the electorate, 55 million people, will change faster then half of the number of members on the Supreme Court, 5 Supreme Court Justices is absurd. The courts are the ones who tend to act rashly not the people. In fact we are saddled with precipitant ruling all the time like gay marriage and abortion. The majority was moving in the direction of making abortion legal and making gay marriage or civil unions legal but the court jumped the gun and strengthened the opposition. Of course some people will say those rulings were correct. Which means that supporters of an all powerful judiciary don’t want to slow things up they want to speed them up?
Such people only care about getting their way even if it means subverting democracy and forcing their views on the majority. A majoriety that they don't respect of care about. They like the idea of a dictatorship when the dictator agrees with them but oppose it when the dictator turns on them. When the Supreme Court gave George Bush the election over Al Gore, the same people who supported unlimited judicial power decided that the courts were too powerful. I wonder what the supporters of abortion will say if the Supreme Court rules that abortion is murder and the majority cannot pass laws making it legal. When people take away the freedoms of others they take away their own freedom as well.
posted by flamestarrants | 5:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home