Which is better?

[Foxfyre]

I don't agree that majority rule is mob rule though. Not when we have a Constitution that acknowledges and protects the unalienable rights of the individual. As long as everybody's unalienable rights are recognized and protected, then the ONLY logical way to decide on policy or what sort of society we will have HAS to depend on the majority vote.

When you protect unalienable rights, the majority cannot force upon the minority any policy or concept or process that does not apply to all equally, including all those in the majority.

So if the majority votes to have a traffic light in their community, the majority is just as subject to the dictates and consequences of that light as is the minority who might have opposed it.

If the majority votes to make public buildings smoke free, nobody in the majority can smoke any more than can the minority who might have opposed the regulation.

Under the Constitution, theoretically the majority cannot vote for the minority to get a benefit that the majority does not get; nor can the majority vote for a minority to pay more in taxes or be subject to other laws that do not apply to the majority. And it is HERE that we start running into serious conflicts and divisiveness in our country because so many are unable to grasp that simple principle.

Likely because the bolded makes no sense.

hate to agree with you but affirmative action makes his statement incorrect.

No it doesn't. Who is to say that Affirmative Action would be a principle the Founders would say was incorporated into the Constitution? The fact that we have a government that does not apply original intent of the Constitution does not in any way negate the principle. The federal government has been violating original intent of the Constitution for well over a hundred years now.

That is why I qualified my remark as 'theoretically'. However, the majority could defend Affirmative Action as the remedy for violation of unalienable rights. That would require a separate and thoughtful debate. I personally had no problem with the original intent of Affirmative Action as necessary in order for there to be equal opportunity to compete in the free market. But once that battle was won, a smart government would have stopped fighting it.

But the allure of power, prestige, and personal fortune was too much for legislators who coveted a massive voting bloc they had created and didn't want to give up.

 

[Pogo]

thanks for the comments so far. a couple of you get it, but most do not.

this country was founded to get away from minority rule under kings and dictators. We formed a republic that protects the rights of everyone, including minorities, BUT elects its leaders and decides on its laws based on what the majority wants.

Today we seem to be going overboard in minority wiew protection while ignoring the views of the majority.

"Protection of" and "rule by" are two completely different things. Which one is your point?

If you believe we were founded to get away from minority rule, then according to Katz, we're based on "mob rule". Doesn't make sense to me either but he has yet to explain it.

why is this so hard for you? the constitution protects minority rights but it does not give them precedence over majority rights.

we make our laws and elect our leaders by majority vote.

currently we have allowed the liberal view to override the constitution. We are rapidly moving to a system of minority rule, exactly what the founders came here to get away from.

"Hard"?? It's not hard at all. I thought about it for maybe two fifths of a second.

Your OP asks about majority versus minority rule, and here above you said "we seem to be going overboard in minority wiew protection", which is not the same thing as minority rule.

We are speaking English, are we not?

 

[Pogo]

I don't agree that majority rule is mob rule though. Not when we have a Constitution that acknowledges and protects the unalienable rights of the individual. As long as everybody's unalienable rights are recognized and protected, then the ONLY logical way to decide on policy or what sort of society we will have HAS to depend on the majority vote.

When you protect unalienable rights, the majority cannot force upon the minority any policy or concept or process that does not apply to all equally, including all those in the majority.

So if the majority votes to have a traffic light in their community, the majority is just as subject to the dictates and consequences of that light as is the minority who might have opposed it.

If the majority votes to make public buildings smoke free, nobody in the majority can smoke any more than can the minority who might have opposed the regulation.

Under the Constitution, theoretically the majority cannot vote for the minority to get a benefit that the majority does not get; nor can the majority vote for a minority to pay more in taxes or be subject to other laws that do not apply to the majority. And it is HERE that we start running into serious conflicts and divisiveness in our country because so many are unable to grasp that simple principle.

Likely because the bolded makes no sense.

hate to agree with you but affirmative action makes his statement incorrect.

What exactly is your point in this thread? All you seem to do is whine when somebody doesn't read the script you want to hear. Are you asking for responses or are you just here to browbeat?

I agree with CCJ, the bolded part made no sense when I read it either. It's because somebody's moving the goalposts on the meaning of "majority" and "minority" in mid-post. In the context used here (voting), a "minority" is an outnumbered voting bloc; it cannot be a racial or social group. You can change your vote; you can't change your race. Two entirely different things.

"Minority" means those whose votes were outnumbered, period. As the rest of Foxy's post points out, stating the obvious, the choice that gets the most votes wins, that's the majority, period, end of story, waiter, check please.

It ain't rocket surgery.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

thanks for the comments so far. a couple of you get it, but most do not.

this country was founded to get away from minority rule under kings and dictators. We formed a republic that protects the rights of everyone, including minorities, BUT elects its leaders and decides on its laws based on what the majority wants.

Today we seem to be going overboard in minority wiew protection while ignoring the views of the majority.

"Protection of" and "rule by" are two completely different things. Which one is your point?

If you believe we were founded to get away from minority rule, then according to Katz, we're based on "mob rule". Doesn't make sense to me either but he has yet to explain it.

why is this so hard for you? the constitution protects minority rights but it does not give them precedence over majority rights.

we make our laws and elect our leaders by majority vote.

currently we have allowed the liberal view to override the constitution. We are rapidly moving to a system of minority rule, exactly what the founders came here to get away from.

Nonsense.

The Constitution protects all rights by placing limits of the power of the state.

We make our laws and elect our leaders by majority vote provided the majority acts in a manner not offensive to the Constitution.

A ‘liberal view’ is not ‘overriding’ the Constitution; indeed, a majority of the judges in Federal courts and justices on the Supreme Court are conservatives appointed by republican presidents.

These jurists review laws in the context of facts, evidence, and precedent.

Last fall, for example, a Federal court struck down as un-Constitutional a Florida law withholding instate college tuition for US citizens whose parents happened to be undocumented. This measure was enacted by the ‘majority,’ motivated solely by animus toward undocumented immigrants and birthright citizenship. The law realized no legitimate legislative end, and was enacted seemingly as means to ‘deter’ undocumented immigrants from entering the state, as their US citizen children would be penalized with a burdensome college tuition, likely making college impossible for them.

The law was clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment, singling out a particular class of US citizens for a punitive measure based only on their parents’ immigration status.

As you can see this has nothing to do with ‘minority rule’ but rather a consistent and logical application of the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Pete7469]

I wonder if you know that nutters often claim victory when getting their ass handed to them. Of course you don't.

since you are clearly a "nutter" then I agree completely.

BTW your avatar is a very sick attempt to denigrate the Christian faith. welcome to my ignore list.

I offended your PC sensibilities? Oh so sorry!

"PC sensibilities"? WTF are you smoking bed wetter? Ridiculing Christ is PC, it's even funded by congress now. You're just another trendy tool who likes to offend people you're programmed to hate.

Yet another example of genetic garbage that should have been incinerated, since the placenta was useful for fertilizer.

 

[Redfish]

Likely because the bolded makes no sense.

hate to agree with you but affirmative action makes his statement incorrect.

What exactly is your point in this thread? All you seem to do is whine when somebody doesn't read the script you want to hear. Are you asking for responses or are you just here to browbeat?

I agree with CCJ, the bolded part made no sense when I read it either. It's because somebody's moving the goalposts on the meaning of "majority" and "minority" in mid-post. In the context used here (voting), a "minority" is an outnumbered voting bloc; it cannot be a racial or social group. You can change your vote; you can't change your race. Two entirely different things.

"Minority" means those whose votes were outnumbered, period. As the rest of Foxy's post points out, stating the obvious, the choice that gets the most votes wins, that's the majority, period, end of story, waiter, check please.

It ain't rocket surgery.

OK, for the last time. our constitution includes protections of the rights of all citizens (note, citizens). our constitution was adopted by majority vote. Our constitution can be amended by a super majority of the states. Again, a majority sets the rules for all of us.

If we lived in a country where a minority ruled, then the constitution would have been put in place by dictate, not vote.

Majority rule does not mean that minorities have no rights, it just means that the country lives by rules set by the majority and those rules include minority protections.

I know that a lot of you want to ignore that basic concept and allow minorities to dictate their agenda on the rest of us, but that is not how the USA works.

 

[Foxfyre]

Likely because the bolded makes no sense.

hate to agree with you but affirmative action makes his statement incorrect.

What exactly is your point in this thread? All you seem to do is whine when somebody doesn't read the script you want to hear. Are you asking for responses or are you just here to browbeat?

I agree with CCJ, the bolded part made no sense when I read it either. It's because somebody's moving the goalposts on the meaning of "majority" and "minority" in mid-post. In the context used here (voting), a "minority" is an outnumbered voting bloc; it cannot be a racial or social group. You can change your vote; you can't change your race. Two entirely different things.

"Minority" means those whose votes were outnumbered, period. As the rest of Foxy's post points out, stating the obvious, the choice that gets the most votes wins, that's the majority, period, end of story, waiter, check please.

It ain't rocket surgery.

Well in defense of those who objected to my statement--which I will stand by and defend by the way --I can see their reasoning. I just don't think they are thinking it through all the way.

The Constitution was designed by the Founders to eliminate the oppressive tyranny of the minority that exists whenever there is an authoritarian government. Thus they did not intend for a central government to ever have the power to infringe on or take away the unalienable rights of the people among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So the federal government was set up to defend those unalienable rights and also avoid a pure majority that could also inevitably violate those same unalienable rights.

But in order to give the people freedom, that also had to include freedom for the people to form themselves into whatever sort of society they wished to have however lawless or restrictive the society they choose might be. So it was intended that if the people wanted a little theocracy, it was the right of a free people to have that. If the people wanted complete lawlessness in their community, that was also their right. Or anything in between. And such decisions re social contract naturally had to be made via majority rule in each neighborhood or community or county or state. The federal government would have no say in that. The federal government would have ability to prevent each state from imposing its values and point of view on any other state, however.

So we have a gray area when it came to ending slavery and by logical progression when it comes to Affirmative Action. Technically allowing people to be racist was no different than allowing people to be religiously restrictive. Would the Founders have approved of nationwide emancipation? I don't know. It's hard to fault it, but would it have happened anyway without all the bloodshed and the other problems it caused? We can speculate that for an eternity. I rather believe that subsequently the Founders would have said the federal government could promote desegregation and Affirmative Action but it would be outside the federal government's authority to require it. Such should be left to each state to work out.

Would that have been better for black people had it been that way? Would the individual states have worked it out to be equitable for everybody as they generally do? We can always speculate. It is safe to say that it is an extremely rare American now who would want us to return to slavery or segregation or a society that barred minorities from certain kinds of work.

According to the research of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams and other black historians, post Civil War black people were the demographic enjoying the most rapid advancement economically UNTIL Johnson's "Great Society" and desegregation and Affirmative Action. Since then not so much. So yes, of course, many inequities were immediately corrected by those federal initiatives. But in the process we may have introduced other uglies that have diminished much of the good. One of those is a prolongation of racism that might have died out if the people themselves had chosen to end it.

An honest debate looks at that objectively. Bitter partisanship and rigid moral thuggism refuses to even have the conversation about it.

 

[Redfish]

hate to agree with you but affirmative action makes his statement incorrect.

What exactly is your point in this thread? All you seem to do is whine when somebody doesn't read the script you want to hear. Are you asking for responses or are you just here to browbeat?

I agree with CCJ, the bolded part made no sense when I read it either. It's because somebody's moving the goalposts on the meaning of "majority" and "minority" in mid-post. In the context used here (voting), a "minority" is an outnumbered voting bloc; it cannot be a racial or social group. You can change your vote; you can't change your race. Two entirely different things.

"Minority" means those whose votes were outnumbered, period. As the rest of Foxy's post points out, stating the obvious, the choice that gets the most votes wins, that's the majority, period, end of story, waiter, check please.

It ain't rocket surgery.

Well in defense of those who objected to my statement--which I will stand by and defend by the way --I can see their reasoning. I just don't think they are thinking it through all the way.

The Constitution was designed by the Founders to eliminate the oppressive tyranny of the minority that exists whenever there is an authoritarian government. Thus they did not intend for a central government to ever have the power to infringe on or take away the unalienable rights of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So the federal government was set up to defend those unalienable rights and also avoid a pure majority that could also inevitably violate those same unalienable rights.

But in order to give the people freedom, that also had to include freedom for the people to form themselves into whatever sort of society they wished to have however lawless or restrictive the society they choose might be. So it was intended that if the people wanted a little theocracy, it was the right of a free people to have that. If the people wanted complete lawlessness in their community, that was also their right. Or anything in between. And such decisions re social contract naturally had to be made via majority rule in each neighborhood or community or county or state. The federal government would have no say in that. The federal government would have ability to prevent each state from imposing its values and point of view on any other state, however.

So we have a gray area when it came to ending slavery and by logical progression when it comes to Affirmative Action. Technically allowing people to be racist was no different than allowing people to be religiously restrictive. Would the Founders have approved of nationwide emancipation? I don't know. It's hard to fault it, but would it have happened anyway without all the bloodshed and the other problems it caused? We can speculate that for an eternity. I rather believe that subsequently the Founders would have said the federal government could promote desegregation and Affirmative Action but it would be outside the federal government's authority to require it. Such should be left to each state to work out.

Would that have been better for black people had it been that way? Would the individual states have worked it out to be equitable for everybody as they generally do? We can always speculate. It is safe to say that it is an extremely rare American now who would want us to return to slavery or segregation or a society that barred minorities from certain kinds of work.

According to the research of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams and other black historians, post Civil War black people were the demographic enjoying the most rapid advancement economically UNTIL Johnson's "Great Society" and desegregation and Affirmative Action. Since then not so much. So yes, of course, many inequities were immediately corrected by those federal initiatives. But in the process we may have introduced other uglies that have diminished much of the good. One of those is a prolongation of racism that might have died out if the people themselves had chosen to end it.

An honest debate looks at that objectively. Bitter partisanship and rigid moral thuggism refuses to even have the conversation about it.

very nice summary, thanks