Most of the people I grew up with agreed that some form of Democracy is the best form of government. I still agree with that but I wanted to ask an interesting question to the classmates and professor. The common understanding of a Democracy is that majority rules, such that lets say for example if 60% of citizens wanted Sunday to be an official day of bashing heads and breaking bodies, instead of a day of rest, family and reflection, then we should all pass laws stating such. If 55% of the population felt that its okay to continue to allow fast food chains to serve and advertise unhealthy, fattening, greasy addicting food, then we should do so.
So my question is should a Democracy allow the majority rule even if some of the practices have been proven to be harmful to its citizens? Secondly, can there be a Democracy if people with greater knowledge and understanding toward the general welfare of its citizens, be allowed to pass laws and guidelines without majority rule?
I think the answer is somewhere in between. Many societies have had the older portion of the population guide the group because of their experiences and wisdoms. There are advantages to that because each generation doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. That too has a flip side because it might tend to stall progress and evolution if a society doesn't allow the visions of the youth to be expressed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
this first "law" would be unconstitutional, therefore it really wont become law. The second "decision" is a democratic decision, and beyond that, Its a right guaranteed. If a small group of people in a "democracy" were able to change such things against the will of the majority, it wouldn't be a democracy anymore.
It is generally referenced as an Oligarchy "troll".
As for the main post, an important point is brought up about the rule of majority and how it factors into, as you exampled, Sundays being a weekly day of general anarchy. There is so much wrong with using that example, I'm not even going to get into some of rediculousness and narrow aim of it...
However, I will say this on what happens when a majority, when in rule, decides to make stupid decisions: the society terminates itself.
A series of bad decisions, unless mediated by a larger voting group of people realizing the coming disaster, will, well, do just that--allow the coming disaster to occur. THe society ends, and, hopefully, a smarter, more educated group will rise from the ashes of the society and learn from the mistakes of the past.
Majority rule is not now, nor has it ever been in any country unlimited. Democracy is not simply majority rule, it has other components as well, one of which is protection of minority rights (meaning anyone not in the majority, not specifically racial minorities). Generally, such protections appear in a Bill of Rights or some similar document. The majority, no matter how strong, does not, and never has, had the right to deny basic human freedoms.
>this first "law" would be unconstitutional, therefore it really wont become law.
This is the "does not follow" fallacy. Thousands of unconstitutional laws have passed in our history. Some are in effect now. The way it works is not that unconstitutional laws don't pass. In fact, the courts have no ability to prevent an unconstitutional law from passing. They can only address it after it passes and only if someone sues over the law.
There is not now, nor has there ever been a constitutional right to a particular type of food. Lets say you wanted to eat your neighbor's housecat. Not legal. Let's say you wanted to eat an endangered species. Not legal. Let's say you wanted to eat a poisonous pufferfish. Not legal. No such right exists.
Finally, a small group of people in our democracy always make decisions for the majority and frequently make decisions against the will of the people and yet we are still a democracy. Again, the specific policies aren't what makes or breaks a democracy, it's the ability of the people to vote out the representatives who don't do what we want them to do.
>However, I will say this on what happens when a majority, when in rule, decides to make stupid decisions: the society terminates itself.
This happens to be false information and a slippery slope. This happens in some very rare situations. When it comes to modern, industrialized democracies, this never happens. No country in that category that has actually established itself over any significant period of time has terminated itself.
By the way 'Baby Boomers' are the largest generation and also conservative for the most part right? Therefore, once they go, the majority should be altogether different. On to the democracy topic though if 51% of the people wanted something and 49% didn't there would be problems in just saying okey dokey 51% rules! Some common ground has to be made in many accounts.
A pure democracy is a government of the poeople from what I understand. I beleive that we live in a federated republic. It is very fashionable to look at our minority/majority representation as divided along race/gender lines however I believe that the overwhelming majority of those representing "the people" in congress are wealthy. Therefore ultimatly many of them make skewed decisions based on the best intrests of the haves...not the have nots. Therefore how could we talk about the poor majority whose needs are being made by the rich minority. hmmm...
>A pure democracy is a government of the poeople from what I understand. I beleive that we live in a federated republic.
In the real world, there is no such thing as a "pure" democracy. The U.S. is a democratic republic.
Post a Comment