Tyranny of the Majority vs. Popular Sovereignty

[MantaRevan]

Alright, so if you know anything about democracy, you know that one of it's founding principle is Popular Sovereignty, or that the interests of the governed should be first concern of the government, and that the government exists to serve to governed.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner. "-Benjamin Franklin

But also, you may have heard of the tyranny of the majority, a scenario where a totally democratic society has a malicious majority(like in the quote above) and uses that to abuse the dissenters.

Now, what I'm asking is how you think a government could draw their rule from the governed, without the voting majority abusing it's minorities.

 

[History_Buff]

You enshrine the fundamental rights of minorities so that they can't be compromised by the elected. An independent and powerful judiciary is the key to this.

 

[Cutlass]

The US currently is abusing its majorities more than it is its minorities. So it can go both ways.

 

[MantaRevan]

The US currently is abusing its majorities more than it is its minorities. So it can go both ways.

Interesting. How so?

 

[Cutlass]

What do you think the Occupy Wall St movement is about? For the past 30 years the government has been abusing 80% of the American public for the purpose of serving the top 20%. Of course that's not the only thing that's going on that harms one group to benefit another. But it has been the dominant policy over the past decades.

 

[MantaRevan]

What do you think the Occupy Wall St movement is about? For the past 30 years the government has been abusing 80% of the American public for the purpose of serving the top 20%. Of course that's not the only thing that's going on that harms one group to benefit another. But it has been the dominant policy over the past decades.

So, you're saying that the people need more power, and are no longer in control of government and business?

 

[Cutlass]

So, you're saying that the people need more power, and are no longer in control of government and business?

Money controls government. And business has that. When money and government are acting in concert, the only outcome is that the general public is the loser.

 

[Narz]

Voting is the opiate of the masses.

Whenever there's a thread on voting this episode of SP comes to mind.

 

[MantaRevan]

Voting is the opiate of the masses.

Whenever there's a thread on voting this episode of SP comes to mind.

No no, I would say that if Karl Marx ever had a really good point he made in his manifesto, religion being the opiate of the masses would be it.

 

[Tee Kay]

Pancasila Democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the consensus arising out of deliberations amongst representatives.

 

[carmen510]

You need to combat excesses of both.

Excesses of popular sovereignty range from disproportionate government support of a small group (agricultural subsidies to agribusiness as an example) to the domination of government by minorities. Tyranny of the Majority can range from disproportionate government punishment of a small group (think mistreatment of Native Americans) to a completely hostile (and possibly deadly) environment for minorities.

 

[bhsup]

You enshrine the fundamental rights of minorities so that they can't be compromised by the elected. An independent and powerful judiciary is the key to this.

No, a supreme law of the land that the judiciary doesn't rip to shreds is the key. A judiciary that just decides what is okay and what isn't okay on a whim just because it thinks it is best is no better than tyranny of the majority. Codified protections in the supreme law of the land are best.

 

[Narz]

No no, I would say that if Karl Marx ever had a really good point he made in his manifesto, religion being the opiate of the masses would be it.

There are many opiates for the masses these days. It's truly an amazing time.

 

[History_Buff]

No, a supreme law of the land that the judiciary doesn't rip to shreds is the key. A judiciary that just decides what is okay and what isn't okay on a whim just because it thinks it is best is no better than tyranny of the majority. Codified protections in the supreme law of the land are best.

Well, that was what I meant in the first sentence there. The judiciary's job being to crush laws that contravene the initial protections.

I just don't think they necessarily need to be codified. They probably should be, particularly if one is creating a fresh democracy today, but it's not essential.

 

[bhsup]

Okay, sorry, I misunderstood then Though I am dubious about not codifying it.

 

[History_Buff]

Well, I can't see any reason not to do it, but we didn't have ours written down until 1982, instead relying on British Common Law (who's 'Constitution' of course remains unwritten). Seeing as we did alright, it's safe to say codification isn't absolutely necessary.

Our Supreme Court has also pointed out that the Constitution isn't complete; there are constitutional rights you hold that aren't actually written in it, as bizarre as that sounds. The first such protection was for parliamentary privilege.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Interesting. How so?

Capitalism.

 

[Glassmage]

The most virtuous autocracy is the best form of government.

 

[Miles Teg]

Voting is the opiate of the masses.

Whenever there's a thread on voting this episode of SP comes to mind.

Yeah, no. The problem is that people aren't voting. Voter turnout in 2010 was 37.8%! It was especially low among the youth and with minority groups. The problem isn't that voting is broken, it's that the faction that actually understands how representative democracy works has nothing but bad ideas about policy.

The most virtuous autocracy is the best form of government.

Honestly, I can never get what's supposed to be so profound about this sort of statements. If you press them on it, they always state that they autocrat needs to be some sort of wise demigod. While I'm not sure how statements about an unattainable perfect government are interesting, it gets even more silly when you realize that you can just as arbitrarily say "The most virtuous democracy/oligarchy/llamaocracy is the best form of government"

 

[El_Machinae]

I think that Canada's Charter has elements that are a good idea. The concept I'm thinking of is how easy it is to add rights compared to how hard it is to take rights away. In the end, we need to figure out how to add rights, because you don't have the best conception at the time when the Constitution is being written. So, eventually good ideas are figured out. These rights should be fairly easy to add. Representative government passing a bill, for example. After that, though, taking rights away should also still be possible (because they might not have been a good idea, in the end), but shouldn't be taken away on a whim. The amending formula to remove rights should then be 'possible, but difficult'.

What will then protect the sheep is that we'll give the sheep rights, and then when it's dinner time, it's hard to take the rights away from the sheep.