The limitations of democracy and civil liberties...

[MessiahDecoy123]

I used to think that if everyone had democracy and free speech in their purest forms things would work out for the best. The public would mostly push for policy that makes the world better and better.

But now I'm starting to question whether the masses can be trusted with such freedom and power.

Let's look at three examples of democracy and free speech gone awry:

1) The cultural revolution in China - the masses overthrow the elite and create a communist dystopia.

2) The Arab Spring - the masses overthrow dictatorships and use democratic power to push Muslim extremism.

3) HYPOTHETICAL - What if racism/homophobia gains wider and wider acceptance and institutional racism/homophobia is once again established?

How can you have pure democracy and free speech and prevent these from happening?

 

[summerteeth]

That's always been a fear of democracy. It's called tyranny of the majority. The founders believed that the American people were educated enough and "virtuous" enough to overcome this fear.

 

[ThePhantasm]

people are stupid

they were made to be ruled

vote ThePhantasm for global dictator 2016

 

[Smashlilman]

I used to think that if everyone had democracy and free speech in their purest forms things would work out for the best. The public would mostly push for policy that makes the world better and better.

But now I'm starting to question whether the masses can be trusted with such freedom and power.

Let's look at three examples of democracy and free speech gone awry:

1) The cultural revolution in China - the masses overthrow the elite and create a communist dystopia.

2) The Arab Spring - the masses overthrow dictatorships and use democratic power to push Muslim extremism.

3) HYPOTHETICAL - What if racism/homophobia gains wider and wider acceptance and institutional racism/homophobia is once again established?

How can you have pure democracy and free speech and prevent these from happening?

Those are examples of mob rule with no civil liberties to protect individual and minority rights.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I would rather have liberty and deal with racist people than live in an Orwellian state.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

That's always been a fear of democracy. It's called tyranny of the majority. The founders believed that the American people were educated enough and "virtuous" enough to overcome this fear.

The masses want control over their destiny but may not be noble enough to deserve such control. So we have the illusion of a democracy where plutocrats actually pull the strings.

Is this the best option possible for society?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I would rather have liberty and deal with racist people than live in an Orwellian state.

But that's assuming the racism stops at rude comments and doesn't further devolve into some type of Nazism or Jim Crow confederacy.

 

[ThePhantasm]

But that's assuming the racism stops at rude comments and doesn't further devolve into some type of Nazism or Jim Crow confederacy.

that's what is great about democracy... you can speak out against stuff like that

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Those are examples of mob rule with no civil liberties to protect individual and minority rights.

But how long would any assurance of civil liberties last when a selfish majority gain power? Suddenly rules begin to move and shift to justify curbing civil liberties.

How many free societies turn into police states for similar reasons?

 

[Smashlilman]

The masses want control over their destiny but may not be noble enough to deserve such control. So we have the illusion of a democracy where plutocrats actually pull the strings.

Is this the best option possible for society?

But how long would any assurance of civil liberties last when a selfish majority gain power? Suddenly rules begin to move and shift to justify curbing civil liberties.

How many free societies turn into police states for similar reasons?

The thing that guards best againsts mob rule are institution that heavily resist change. So in America we have the Constitution that contains the Bill of Rights and its incredibly hard to change. So that prevents radical changes from taking place because of mob fervor. We have checks and balances from different area of the government to prevent one from going out of control. The Supreme Court is insulated from the normal fluctuation of the political world though life time appointments. The House and the Senate have to approve the same bill before it can move to the president to be signed into law. The electoral college prevents the more populous states from dominating least populous states.

The only down side to this is absolute grid lock when the populous is divided.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

that's what is great about democracy... you can speak out against stuff like that

But democracy by its very definition means a non sympathetic majority can ignore the needs of the few.

 

[summerteeth]

The masses want control over their destiny but may not be noble enough to deserve such control. So we have the illusion of a democracy where plutocrats actually pull the strings.

Is this the best option possible for society?

People are a lot smarter than they are given credit for, we are not ruled by plutocrats and are very well capable of making our own decisions. The United States will not descend into some mob rule that you've seen in other countries if that is your concern. Those countries failed at democracy because they had no history of democracy and prioritizing liberty. The colonists had some concept of natural rights and democratic processes from Britain. While what they created was revolutionary the seed was planted from British government and philosophers. I think countries need to eased into democracy. Another point is the ability for the American colonists to understand complex ideas and support them. Common Sense by Thomas Paine was purchased by 20% of the population at the time, which is a fairly complex work. For comparison, China's literacy rate at the time of The Communist Revolution was 15%.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The thing that guards best againsts mob rule are institution that heavily resist change. So in America we have the Constitution that contains the Bill of Rights and its incredibly hard to change. So that prevents radical changes from taking place because of mob fervor. We have checks and balances from different area of the government to prevent one from going out of control. The Supreme Court is insulated from the normal fluctuation of the political world though life time appointments. The House and the Senate have to approve the same bill before it can move to the president to be signed into law. The electoral college prevents the more populous states from dominating least populous states.

The only down side to this is absolute grid lock when the populous is divided.

It seems to be working so far but I sometimes worry if one side of the culture war will push the people and government too far away from sensible public policy.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

People are a lot smarter than they are given credit for, we are not ruled by plutocrats and are very well capable of making our own decisions. The United States will not descend into some mob rule that you've seen in other countries if that is your concern. Those countries failed at democracy because they had no history of democracy and prioritizing liberty. The colonists had some concept of natural rights and democratic processes from Britain. While what they created was revolutionary the seed was planted from British government and philosophers. I think countries need to eased into democracy. Another point is the ability for the American colonists to understand complex ideas and support them. Common Sense by Thomas Paine was purchased by 20% of the population at the time, which is a fairly complex work. For comparison, China's literacy rate at the time of The Communist Revolution was 15%.

Are there any beliefs you have that counter current policy or the majority? How do you hope that conflict will be resolved?

 

[chaseter]

You can never accommodate everyone or make everyone happy in any Democracy. That's where free market comes in. We are now entering Minoritarianism in this country where we are bending over backwards to appease vocal minority factions. Take for example the Muslim flight attendant that sued over her job having to serve alcoholic drinks. Get another job?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

You can never accommodate everyone or make everyone happy in any Democracy. That's where free market comes in. We are now entering Minoritarianism in this country where we are bending over backwards to appease vocal minority factions. Take for example the Muslim flight attendant that sued over her job having to serve alcoholic drinks. Get another job?

But don't minorities sometimes have valid complaints/concerns?

What if whites become the minority? Should their concerns be ignored?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Do the checks and balances we have in our three branches of government ensure progress?

Is it possible to regress to less sensible public policy?

To what extent?

 

[Smashlilman]

You can never accommodate everyone or make everyone happy in any Democracy. That's where free market comes in. We are now entering Minoritarianism in this country where we are bending over backwards to appease vocal minority factions. Take for example the Muslim flight attendant that sued over her job having to serve alcoholic drinks. Get another job?

That has a lot less to do with the Muslim flight attendant being a Muslim minority. That has more to do with Religious accommodations being forced on employers or employees. It's exactly like the Kim Davis situation or the Baker not wanting to sell to gay people based on this religious views or Hobby Lobby being able to prevent their employees from receiving birth control from there insurer.

Their religious views shouldn't prevent a customer from being able to buy, serve, or acquire a product or service.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The fundamental problem in all those instances is that there is no history of democracy in any of them.

China, Russia, the Arab world. Pretty much everywhere where Communism really took off.

You can not introduce democracy to a place which has always either been a totalitarian dictatorship, or anarchy.

 

[chaseter]

Sometimes yes. It's never absolute. 60's would be a good example.

Today? Not so much. I think we are entering into tyranny of the minority. That's why we have 50 labs of Democracy. There could eventually be an all gay State. All it takes is the actions of the people to change it themselves. They don't have to force everyone else to change it for them. Forcing everyone to bend to your will is just as wrong as tyranny of the majority. At some point it snowballs into silliness because that's the culture we live in, selfish insta-gratification.

 

[chaseter]

That has a lot less to do with the Muslim flight attendant being a Muslim minority. That has more to do with Religious accommodations being forced on employers or employees. It's exactly like the Kim Davis situation or the Baker not wanting to sell to gay people based on this religious views or Hobby Lobby being able to prevent their employees from receiving birth control from there insurer.

Their religious views shouldn't prevent a customer from being able to buy, serve, or acquire a product or service.

Religion is viewed as a class of people in the court of law alongside race and sex. A Christian business should have the right to refuse to bake a pentagram cake with Happy Birthday Satan on it. A Jewish baker should refuse service to a Neo Nazi. That's the free market. Go to a Satanic bakery. Legislating that a Jewish baker has to serve a guy with a swastika tattoo is ridiculous. That's where we are getting bogged down by silliness. Guess who pays for all that gridlock and red tape? The tax payer.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Sometimes yes. It's never absolute. 60's would be a good example.

Today? Not so much. I think we are entering into tyranny of the minority. That's why we have 50 labs of Democracy. There could eventually be an all gay State. All it takes is the actions of the people to change it themselves. They don't have to force everyone else to change it for them. Forcing everyone to bend to your will is just as wrong as tyranny of the majority. At some point it snowballs into silliness because that's the culture we live in, selfish insta-gratification.

So there shouldn't be any limit on state power?

What if the people in that state does terrible things like segregation of blacks or persecution of gays?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Religion is viewed as a class of people in the court of law alongside race and sex. A Christian business should have the right to refuse to bake a pentagram cake with Happy Birthday Satan on it. A Jewish baker should refuse service to a Neo Nazi. That's the free market. Go to a Satanic bakery. Legislating that a Jewish baker has to serve a guy with a swastika tattoo is ridiculous. That's where we are getting bogged down by silliness. Guess who pays for all that gridlock and red tape? The tax payer.

So businesses should be allowed to refuse Jewish or black costumers based on their creed or race?

You don't see a slippery slope there?

 

[chaseter]

I didn't mention race. You can choose your religion. Refusing service =\= persecution or oppression in relation to religion imo. Free market.

You can't force a religion to go against itself or a business to bend to another's religion. I shouldn't be able to sue a Jewish deli because my religion says bacon is ok. That's silly. But, a Muslim woman can sue an airline for putting her on leave because she wouldn't serve alcohol. What's next, a Jehova's witness employee suing a bakery because they are required to make birthday cakes? It's either all silly or it's all allowed. Hobby Lobby shouldn't be forced to provide contraception unless medically necessary. We have no common sense anymore.

 

[chaseter]

So there shouldn't be any limit on state power?

What if the people in that state does terrible things like segregation of blacks or persecution of gays?

Where do you draw the line?

Federal law is the limit of course. Federal law states no segregation based on race.

Again, free market principles. If we had one government bakery then that would be a different story.