I don't see how understanding the brain can be achieved in any complete way. Usually x understands something simpler than x, and simpler by orders of magnitude at that (furthermore, something which is possible to be formed as a concept by x and translated to that system). Usually when people speak of "understanding" such objects, they mean it in a very limited and specific, isolated or fragmented and supposedly self-contained context, a bit like claiming that one understands movement because (in some context) specific formulae can be used. But movement itself isn't inherently split from anything else in the material world, which world is not limited to what is picked up by an observer.
On democracy promoting the voting power of citizens
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
Oh yeah, I know, but I would suggest this makes those things pretty squarely a legacy of slavery.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Especially since the reason for making so many new felonies was because the 13th amendment made an exception allowing slavery to continue when it is a punishment for a crime.
That is how we got a lot of weird minor crimes that really just boiled down to "not having a job" or "travelling too far looking for a job working for anyone other than one's former master."
Slavery in the form of prison laborer rented out to former slave masters was often more brutal than chattel slavey had been before abolition, as a master did not have an incentive to try to protect his investment long term (or make sure they were able to raise the next generation of workers) and could easily get more convicts to replace those injured on the job.
Last edited:
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
I was about to ask what slavery had to do with it., than's you just explained. It is screwed up.
Lexicus
Deity
Fair enough.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
it's almost as if slavery is not just morally bankrupt, but a really bad economic system that leaves a gaping wound after it
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
That's an interesting question. Obviously vote is firstly motivated by individual interests (even indirectly), yet I would say that democracy cannot work if individuals don't believe their interests aren't also served by a form of general interest. Democracy requires a broad belief among citizens that the common good serves everyone as an individual. If the community of citizens is meaningless in the first place, then democracy will not work. See for instance the attempt to establish a democracy in Iraq which ended up with Shia muslims, Sunni muslims and Kurds using their voting power mostly to lobby for their own community interests against one another. Told differently, democracy isn't only about voting, otherwise it would be a dictatorship of the majority. It also requires protection of individual rights as citizens.
Theorically, the protection of individual rights combined with free and fair elections should generate a sense of belonging among citizens. If I only say "theorically", it's because in the past 20 years, populations among most Western democracies have grown more fragmented. The belief in common good is eroding and people's interests are focusing within their own community of interest. Those community of interests could relate to their identity, but it could be other things. To take a more neutral example, that could be gamers spending all their time online with their gaming community and considering the whole national democratic process as something very distant from them, as they consider it's not decisive for their own lives. I'm not pointing out gamers specifically here, that's just an example among many others.
In Switzerland, which is one of the very few countries where direct democracy still plays a prominent role (local referendums), minority citizens can and do end up with some fewer rights. An example of that would be muslim citizens not being able to have mosques. But this is a result of the democracy working.
If the population is more "conservative", it votes for more conservative things. To externally disable it from doing so can be identified in some cases as preferable (for human rights), but it definitely isn't a sign of more or better democracy.
In other words, I don't identify the term "dictatorship of the majority" as being objective. If you wish the people to vote for more "progressive" things, you should rely on actual will among them to do so, not force. It's another way of saying that politicians are not kings, so they have a responsibility to express their voters and not the other way around.
@Hrothbern : It is the first, but the state should strive to have it tied to the second. After all, a critical mass of citizens who don't think there is a common good, is detrimental to the state.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Using public funds to build a mosque isn't a "right". What I had in mind was rather fundamental rights as citizens. In that specific example, that would be freedom of conscience. Muslims can practice their religion freely in Switzerland. If it would be otherwise and muslims would be persecuted by the majority, they would be rejected and not recognized as citizens, which is obviously not the case here.
I agree that the social contract establishing the rights and duties of citizens within the national community is up to debate. I haven't said the opposite actually. However there are fundamental principles which have to make some form of consensus among citizens. Otherwise institutions themselves would be disputed. And institutions which are disputed are necessarily weak in a democracy.
Afaik muslims in Switzerland can go to private religious places, which are makeshift and obviously include neither minarets nor the characteristic chanting (which is meant to have public reach). It's not like you can privately build a mosque (building with minarets and chanting). The ban isn't only about the state itself refusing to build one, but outlawing private sector building of mosques.
As to whether that is a "right" or not, surely the referendum (also) answered as to that, since Switzerland does have a constitution and references to rights of citizens => what is a right is also to be decided democratically, apart from those rights protected explicitly by the constitution (or similar where the country has no constitution).
As to whether that is a "right" or not, surely the referendum (also) answered as to that, since Switzerland does have a constitution and references to rights of citizens => what is a right is also to be decided democratically, apart from those rights protected explicitly by the constitution (or similar where the country has no constitution).
Last edited:
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Are muslims banned from practicing their religion in Switzerland?
