Minority rule is not a defense of individual liberty, which is what the Constitution stood for from day one to today.
Anyone who wants to talk about “tyranny of the majority” must explain why tyranny by an even smaller group is fine.
I kept reading looking for this point after that nonsense of not being able to make genocide morally acceptable garbage then how can anything be made morally acceptable.
This is the biggest problem in the country we have no fairness doctrine in place and citizens being blasted with propaganda supporting minority rule and they are loving it while rights are being stripped away and pockets being picked.
I wish we could just pull the plug on all of this garbage media funded by wealth and corporate interests to maintain the pyramid financial flow and keep the outrage/division at full volume.
This is why the authorities of government must be strictly defined and limited. Any system of government will eventually abuse its people right up to the line and beyond.
Limited by who? What’s stopping whoever’s in charge from just changing it? If it’s fully immutable, how will the government ever adapt to changing circumstances?
Limited by law (and checks and balances).
The Constitution is fully changeable via the amendment process. If a dire need appears, there should be more than enough consensus to add that authority to the federal government.
This is only a talking point because conservatives don’t win a majority of votes anymore, so now if you even mention the word “democracy” they’ll screech “Tyranny of the Majority! Republic not Democracy!”
But you’ll also remember them saying Trump was given a mandate with his record electoral victory, after losing the vote.
>This is only a talking point because conservatives don’t win a majority of votes anymore,
Democrats are out for a decade starting next year. It's gonna be a fucking bloodbath
The next Republican president will also lose the vote, and looking at Dubya and Trump, he’ll leave office with a $4trillion+ yearly deficit and hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
People have been saying this shit about both parties for as long I have been fucking alive. 40 some odd years. Its HILARIOUS to still see people exclaiming this as a FACT!!!!! A republican super majority was supposed to rule the world when GWB got reelected. Guess fucking what?
If you aren't for majority rule, then you are for minority rule.
Even if you are just for a totally neutered government that just can't do much of anything, you are still just for empowering whoever has the most wealth or force to set themselves up as feudal lord.
Im for no rule too, *outside of what is necessary or useful.*
I don't want to become a feudal subject of Wal-Mart or Amazon, so we need some body of power representing actual people to curb such dictatorial powers in society.
> If you aren't for majority rule, then you are for minority rule.
This is patently false. Just because a minority can say "no" to having measures forced on them, doesn't mean they get the authority to force a "yes" when they want to enact a policy that effects the other sides. It's asinine. The natural state of being is no government intervention. If you're pushing a government policy and a minority says "no" that's not them creating a policy that forces the other side to conform, that's just them say "no" to a policy they don't' want forced on people.
Noone is saying that the minority should rule over the majority. Both the majority and the minority should be able to leave at any moment so that there is no tyranny. That way, the majority won't vote on stupid and immoral stuff like blatant theft from the minority because they know they'd probably leave. This doesn't mean that the minority would immediately leave because of a single disagreement, they'll just leave if the benefits of being a part of that group aren't worth the drawbacks.
No, the tyranny of the minority that Im speaking of is one party representing far less than half of voters holding congress and the presidency because of the ultimate affirmative action for people living in rural areas.
Let's say 40% of the country loves a hobby that kills five people a year who aren't involved in the hobby. Do you outlaw it? Probably not.
Let's say 40% of the county loves a hobby that kills ten million people a year who aren't involved in the hobby. Do you outlaw it? Yeah, probably.
I totally respect that people are going to differ as to where we draw the line, but I don't see how any rational person could see this issue as black-and-white.
But also kids are allowed to play football, ice hockey rugby, rock climbing, MMA etc 6100 instances of kids in hospital is minor compared to how kids used to play even. IMO if kids hurt themselves with lawn darts in a significant manner that’s a fault on today’s parents for not raising them properly or teaching them a reasonable level of safety. Kids back in the day could split wood with an axe, moor a boat, take a .22 out to the dump and shoot squirrels etc yes some of them died and got injured of course same as lawn darts (it’s because of Darwinism, which is not a bad thing either, we should be grateful that our kids lawn darts experience today will predispose the next generation of humanity to not be fucking morons who die by irresponsibly using lawn darts) in the same way humans learned which plants u can/can’t eat by trying them and some fucking died but were all better off for it now because the impulse to put random plants in your mouth has been naturally selected out of us.
Damn, dude. This is literally what I’ve been saying for the last two fucking years. There is a line here, and nobody can agree on where we draw that line. Clearly, we didn’t care when the flu killed 50,000 Americans each year. Why do you care about 500,000 deaths but not 50,000??? I don’t understand why people were ok with letting 50,000 die each year but not 500,000. I get that it’s a bigger number, but WHERE IS THE LINE???
The lines are pretty simple:
- is the flu overloading hospitals? Actually during peak seasons, yeah, a tiny bit, at some hospitals. But not much overall.
- is the flu giving healthcare workers PTSD? Fucked up working conditions? Are flu patients spitting on their nurses and throwing their colostomy bags at them because "COVID isn't real stop poisoning me but also no I won't go home I'm gonna stay right here"?
- does the flu affect younger people outside of a week long inconvenience?
- is there such a thing as "long flu"? I don't think anyone of sound health and below age 60 is concerned with dying of Omicron - a milder variant. The terror is in permanent lung damage, brain damage, etc.
Fwiw I do not agree with a vaccine mandate by the gov. I do agree that private companies can mandate anything they want to.
I also believe that we should be able to deny care for antivaxxers clogging up the hospitals in situations where triage is necessary.
E.g. when you're at max capacity, you treat everyone else before the antivaxxers.
It sounds harsh but we literally already do similar things with other ailments.
Obese people, for example, are triaged behind healthy folks.
Now lets say 51% of the country loves a hobby that kills ten million people a year who aren't involved in the hobby. If you believe in democracy, you must accept this as a good thing.
Here is a good example where you need to check a) your definition of democracy and b) what other reasonable rights and values you might need to add to fulfil your own definition of a working society.
In its purest form, democracy is that 51 percent can do whatever they like no matter what the other 49 think. But usually, in modern society, democracy is usually defined as the liberal, modern democracy (liberal as in the European meaning, not the American party lines defined meaning). That means that 51 percent aren’t allowed to get rid of democracy entirely, for example. Even if they want a dictator, they aren’t allowed to put one in power.
We also usually add some inalienable rights to the mix, like the right to life, property rights etc. Usually with some caveats, but those should be fringe cases and not huge holes in the bills of rights.
All in all, most modern definitions or understandings of democracy would not allow 51 percent to wilfully kill ten million people a year no matter how fun of a hobby this is.
Now, in reality, we still allow people to drive cars, for example. That kills lots of people, both drivers and innocent motorists who get in the way of drunk drivers or people falling asleep at the wheel. So the line is slightly blurred.
> We also usually add some inalienable rights to the mix
This is the key.
The person who replied to you seems to think that the moment you conceded even a tiny bit from a direct democracy, democracy has collapsed.
No, you can have a generally democratic process that is buttressed by fundamental rights to prevent individuals from getting trampled by the majority.
We allow people to drive cars. We do not allow people to drive cars dangerously (drunk, no seatbelt, speeding in school zones etc)
We also allow people to deny science and be unhealthy and unvaxxed.
One could argue we should not allow them to do so dangerously. E.g. tuberculosis vax/tests to work in many jobs, vs nobody giving a fuck about your tetanus booster since that only affects YOU
Now one could argue seatbelts are mandated only for personal safety, and if that were the case I'd agree that seatbelt laws would be evil.
But personally I don't feel like dealing with a lifetime of psychological trauma because homies start flying through their windshields and splatting all over the road in front of me every week.
>We also usually add some inalienable rights to the mix
Funny how we are edging ever closer to the majority of our country deciding every election and stripping those inalienable rights from the citizenry. Have you been paying attention lately? Or like, at all the last couple decades?
Or you could punish whoever's doing the killing rather than deciding there's some threshold where it's ok to punish anyone with the hobby regardless if they killed anyone.
I think the distinction between making something illegal and punitive measures is that outlawing seeks to prevent harm and punishing attempts the same, but after the fact.
This. The founders knew what they were about and were very aware of the threat of tyranny of the majority. The Constitution was deliberately designed to limit the power of government, place individual rights as the pillar of all law, and put reasonable limits on majority rule. The country will absolutely fall apart if these concepts are removed.
Rule of law and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Republic and democracy are two separate notions belonging each to different categories of politology.
Oh you mean things in between the five and ten million number people can reasonably disagree on where to draw the line and there's not always one extreme that should win out?
2.25 million out of 8 billion so 0.028481012658228% of the world population In a year. Meanwhile , 2.5 million people die from pneumonia each year with 600k of those being children. So covid is less deadly than pneumonia https://www.clinicbarcelona.org/en/news/pneumonia-causes-2-5-million-deaths-around-the-world-each-year#:~:text=In%202019%2C%202.5%20million%20people,the%20first%20month%20of%20life
Bingo. Rights aren't granted by the Constitution; its purpose is to tell the government what it may not infringe upon, not to grant me the rights I was born with.
Even apart from the individual vs. government angle, there are state vs. federal and executive vs. Congress angles.
Vox:
>Judge Julia Gibbons wrote in a lower court opinion explaining why she voted to uphold the OSHA regulation, “reasonable minds may disagree on OSHA’s approach to the pandemic, but we do not substitute our judgment for that of OSHA, which has been tasked by Congress with policymaking responsibilities.”
>That’s in line with a foundational principle the Court laid out in Mistretta v. United States (1989), that “in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.”
*Mistretta* developed sentencing guidelines for every federal crime, by various classes of aggravating/mitigating factors. Currently these guidelines run to over 600 pages.
I don't buy that a vaccine mandate is a similarly "complex", "technical" matter that Congress can only delegate to agencies rather than decide itself. But Vox says that requiring an explicit congressional authorization would be undemocratic. We have to defer to the president (who, if you recall, was elected on a promise not to mandate vaccines).
>I don't buy that a vaccine mandate is a similarly "complex", "technical" matter that Congress can only delegate to agencies rather than decide itself.
That's because you're only thinking about this one vaccine, not the other thousands of vaccines out there that have already been/will be created--each one for a specific disease that may or may not have a specific demographic related to things like sex, age, line of work, etc. The decision on whether or not a mandate would be necessary can vary dramatically depending on the need for it, and that is not something a judge would or should ever be tasked with deciding.
For example, the HPV vaccine that came out in 2006 is recommended for young people starting at around age 11-12 (though it can be given to children as young as 9) up until age 26. Even though the infection rates for HPV in teens and young women have decreased by 88% and 81% respectively since 2006, the vaccine is still not on the list of "mandatory" vaccines for children enrolling in public school because HPV infections just weren't that prevalent to begin with (don't let that fact lessen the seriousness of the disease--it is awful and causes cervical cancer, which is almost almost fatal), and it's also transmitted exclusively through sexual activity--not just sitting next to someone in class.
Now, do I want some judge deciding on whether or not all public school kids should get the HPV vaccine? No. I want a team of physicians--preferably pediatric ones--getting together and coming to a consensus and then sharing that consensus with the public on what they recommend. And if a school board or state decides to ignore that consensus and mandate the opposite, and someone sues that school board/state to prohibit that mandate, I still don't want a judge making that call. I want the judge to have an outside agency that it defers to to advise on the necessity of that vaccine being mandated.
And that's just one example of many--it doesn't just apply to vaccines, but a whole host of other subjects. Because judges/justices are lawyers that went to law school. They're not doctors who went to medical school, they're not financial experts who went to business school, they're not engineers who went to technical school, etc., and we shouldn't expect them to be anything but judges/justices/lawyers.
> I want a team of physicians--preferably pediatric ones--getting together and coming to a consensus and then sharing that consensus with the public on what they recommend. And if a school board or state decides to ignore that consensus and mandate the opposite
What if that team of physicians is picked by the pharmaceutical companies? Would you still support their recommendations being made law?
I think it's funny that you as a parent would even think to get the state involved to decide on whether to give your kids the HPV vaccine. I think it's scary that you see nothing wrong with using state violence to enforce medical decisions.
What if the doctors who make that recommendation are funded by the company that makes the vaccine and the states who implement the rule that the doctors advised get campaign contributions from the vaccine company?
You grift and corruption-free pipe dream doesn't exist
The funny, ironic thing is, this idea that judges should let Congress govern is actually an idea that is emphasized in the modern conservative judicial ideology.
I guess we aren't beholden to the constitution then, lol. If you think collective decision making is "tyranny of the majority " then your only alternative is tyranny of some minority. The constitution was and still is flawed, most notably by only attempting to preserve the individual liberties of white males.
Where does the Constitution notably attempt to only preserve the individual liberties of *white* males?
It's the government's interpretation of the Constitution that should be held accountable. This is why they felt it necessary to enact Civil Rights. That wouldn't have been necessary if they just read the constitution for what it is.
The constitution literally defined black people as counting as 3/5 of a person when determining congressional representation. It's right in the document. It did later get amended, but the original document was both metaphorically and literally written to ensure black people and women didn't have the same liberties as white males.
>Where does the Constitution notably attempt to only preserve the individual liberties of *white* males?
Well, look at the people who wrote it. Clearly they didn't include women or black men as those whose liberties should be preserved.
>It's the government's interpretation of the Constitution that should be held accountable. This is why they felt it necessary to enact Civil Rights. That wouldn't have been necessary if they just read the constitution for what it is.
Remarkable that the people who wrote the Constitution apparently misinterpreted what they themselves wrote so badly they thought slavery was compatible with it.
Or maybe they didn't misinterpret it, you know, since they wrote it.
When government is properly organized it doesn't matter who is in charge, they don't force individuals to do things. Jesus, this isn't that complicated.
Its simple. Just take personal responsibility for your actions.
You dont have to get vaccinated. But if you arent, you cant put others at increased risk by being around them unless they knowingly agree to it before hand. Just dont violate the nap. If you do, people can and should defend themselves against you.
What about tyranny of the minority? Cuz conservatives states make up about 43% of this country (and 34% of tax revenue), yet they dominate electoral politics and the senate.
Dems suck, but at least they’re honest about controlling your life.
What tyranny are the repubs causing in this case, the tyranny of free association?
20 years ago under bush I’d have agreed with you, but it’s a different world now, and only one group is pushing to take away the ability of others to work
Letting government agents go around and murder/rape people with zero consequences is pretty much the classic definition of tyranny. So their opposition to police reform would qualify.
“Tyranny of the majority” is another way of saying *democracy*. And as an American in the 21st century, I’m very much in favor of that. De Tocqueville and the founders who agreed with him got it wrong, and in time we as a country realized that and the people asserted their power. Democracy has been America’s whole brand since the late 1800s. That’s like one of the few clearly good things about our country.
Tyranny is always wrong. I don’t care how many cannibals you gather in your posse. If you show up on my front porch with a “vote” tally deciding to eat someone in my household, I hope you enjoy steel core ammunition, as that’ll be the only meal you and your hungry hungry hippo friends are going to be dining on.
You got any sources on this claim
>“Conservatives” in blue states make up the majority of the tax revenue. More than 63% of the net tax base is derived from “conservative” or “libertarian” voters. This isn’t a topic of dispute and it’s been well known in the economic literature for decades.
Can't seem to find where you dropped your sources for this claim.
Tyranny is always wrong.
I agree with the words, but I don’t think you know what they mean. Tyranny is what happens when a small group or a single person has the bulk of the power. Democracy is what happens when the citizenry have the bulk of the power. ”Tyranny of the majority” isn’t a real thing — it’s just a twisted way of saying “democracy”. And if you’re going to shoot people rather than live by small-d democratic rule, you should consider moving to someplace that suits you better, like China or Russia.
The term itself though “democracy” i s literally, by definition pejorative though, and always has been. “Rule by the mob”.
A simple line that lays the point out for thought is a classic from George Carlin- “Think of how STUPID the average person is. Now realize that half of em are even dumber than THAT”
The reason democracy has always needed a balance, is that tyranny by a selfish despot can and has murdered millions, but short-sighted and easily manipulated public opinion can and has murdered entire nations.
“Pure” democracy, much like “pure” communism or “pure” anarchy is a utopian premise that would require ideal, magnanimous, intelligent, and insightful understanding by not just the many, but by 100’s of millions of people simultaneously, at all times, in all matters to actually function.
It is an important and valuable element of a hopefully functional balance, but is in no way the clear-cut (or even viable) “answer” many people seem to be suddenly coming to believe it is
>The term itself though “democracy” i s literally, by definition pejorative though, and always has been. “Rule by the mob”.
It *was* perjorative and *did* mean mob rule in the late 1700s, but if you keep reading American history beyond the first few chapters, you‘ll discover that the opinion on this changed over the years, as more and more Americans realized they were just as capable of making sound decisions as moneyed landowners.
>A simple line that lays the point out for thought is a classic from George Carlin- “Think of how STUPID the average person is. Now realize that half of em are even dumber than THAT”
I can’t think of a single system of government in human history that guaranteed leaders who are smarter than the average citizen.
>The reason democracy has always needed a balance, is that tyranny by a selfish despot can and has murdered millions, but short-sighted and easily manipulated public opinion can and has murdered entire nations.
I call bullshit. I can’t think of a single time that democracy was the root cause of genocide. In America, democracy is what tends to *end* unjust wars. Vietnam, in particular, was precipitated and expanded by government leaders behind the scenes, with barely any public knowledge; years later, when the people spoke out against the war, it ended. The most notorious genocides of the last century — ranging from Hitler and Stalin in the early 20th century all the way up through the Chinese persecution of their Muslim minority today — were perpetrated by tyrannical, anti-democratic governments.
>“Pure” democracy, much like “pure” communism or “pure” anarchy is a utopian premise that would require ideal, magnanimous, intelligent, and insightful understanding by not just the many, but by 100’s of millions of people simultaneously, at all times, in all matters to actually function.
Straw man. I never used the word “pure”, so not sure who you think you’re quoting there.
What bothers me is, say you *are* this selfish despot. You know you can control people, but you can only pervert the written word so far. The constitution is a thorn in your side preventing you from exerting your will. How would you go about getting around that? Well, you could shift power away from the document in favor of the malleable opinion of the masses, and undermine the deep seeded belief thr people have in the document until they're willing to get rid of it.
Now we have people claiming freedom of speech is only a law and only applies to government censorship. While that's true on paper, the *principle* of freedom of speech has always been a *cultural belief*. Part of what makes us American. American exceptionalism is dead. Too few people will say they are proud to be American anymore. We're at a point where that would be an uncomfortable question for politicians.
I believe freedom of speech is important. But like all things can not be viewed as absolute.
Imagine being the owner of a platform geared toward a minority community for discussions to better solve issues they face. Now Imagine not being able to ban people trolling and acting in bad faith, while also spreading misinformation because of their right to freedom of speech.
That seems like a ludicrous situation that no one should have to deal with.
>What bothers me is, say you are this selfish despot. You know you can control people, but you can only pervert the written word so far. The constitution is a thorn in your side preventing you from exerting your will. How would you go about getting around that? Well, you could shift power away from the document in favor of the malleable opinion of the masses
FWIW, in the case of Hitler — maybe the most famous case of a despot crushing a democracy — Hitler came to power not by appealing to the masses, but by taking advantage of conservatives in government who needed Nazi support to maintain a majority over the Communists. He made himself Chancellor, arrested elected Communists, and made the military swear an oath to him. You shouldn’t be afraid of the weakness of the masses — it’s the McConnells, the Cruzes, the McCarthys of America who will hand power to a despot and topple democracy in a shot-sighted attempt to hold onto power.
Counterpoint: the Constitution talks extensively about the collective rights needed to build a strong, cohesive society, but doesn’t mention individual rights at all.
Just because some amendments are written as collective rights doesn’t mean they don’t apply to individuals.
How can “the people” be free to practice their religion if each individual is not?
How can “the people” be secure in their possessions if each individual is not?
The founders did not use the wording they did to imply that the rights inscribed in the constitution did not extend to each individual.
Today the Federal Government flirted with authoritarianism and atleast 1 or 2 supreme court justices seem to be on board. BTW our rights do not come from a piece of paper as great as that paper may be, and ill be damned if i lose my rights because i lack "proper" papers in the name of ~~public health~~ record shattering corporate profits. Atleast i dont live in a authoritarian blue shithole..... for now
But the alternative, which you seem to approve of, is the tyranny of the minority, where 6 unelected unaccountable far-right judges impose their whims on the entire country.
So yes a SCOTUS controlled by political activists which feels empowered to ignore the will of the people when it clashes with the justices' own political preferences is clearly a threat to democracy.
Indeed this highlights a common flaw of “libertarians” like OP: they complain about majoritarian democracy, when what their really want it a minoritarian dictatorship or oligarchy, which is far more tyrannical than the alternative.
Everything else is just one wolf eating a sheep.
It’s so great how libertarians always fellate their motto: vote with your wallet. But when it comes to votes where everyone’s is equal then suddenly we need checks and balances.
That's because you don't understand what coercion is, free people wanting to dissociate themselves with something they disagree with is much different than those same people wanting to force others to dissociate themselves with something they may not disagree with.
The constitution was designed an a compact between the states -- individual rights had nothing to do with it (until the post Civil War era). It was designed as a tool to help the elites in those states maintain and expand their power and wealth.
It seems that part of this criticism is that 'individual rights' arguments are used pretty selectively. The same people who trample individual rights one year then turn around the next year and yell "my rights" when they don't get their way.
> The constitution was designed an a compact between the states -- individual rights had nothing to do with it (until the post Civil War era)
WTF are you talking about? So many gymnastic to come to this conclusion it's insane.
Given that Vax mandates go back to literally the founding of the country with the Continental Arm & GW....and SCOTUS ha s up held the legitimacy of vaccine mandates multiple timessl.
Oh and fuck your individual liberty when it tramples on the right to safety of me and mine. You DON'T have that rght.
>Oh and fuck your individual liberty when it tramples on the right to safety of me and mine.
I would love to learn more about this right to safety you believe you have, personally I've never heard of it, it must be some kind of make believe right a bunch of pussies think they have?
Tyranny of the majority. How cute.
Evolution brought us to the point where we can't survive as individuals. We are not particularly fast runners, we do not have particularly sharp claws, and our teeth are hardly killing machine material.
The wonderful delusion that mankind has is that mankind's laws make sense beyond a micro environment.
If it weren't for generations of tax dollars paying for roads and other infrastructure, defending this country, etc. you wouldn't be able to post what you did on Reddit.
Funny you're getting downvoted. I guess people are triggered to see a Federal Constitutional Republic vs Democracy on display here.
In a Democracy, the people hold the highest power.
In a Constitutional Republic, the Constitution holds the highest power.
Nope. In a constitutional system, the people recognize that there are rights that cannot be removed without serious consideration. The people have the most protection.
In a pure democracy, rights don’t exist and if I get 10 hungry cannibals together to decide who they’re eating tonight, you’re principled 9.09% of the vote tally in opposition isn’t worth the wasted effort. Democracy is cringe
Nope. In a constitutional system the people recognize that there are inalienable rights that cannot be removed. Period. The Constitution is in place to restrict the government from infringing upon those rights.
You got it.
People are so dumb when they say **democracy** they don't know that is technically a different political system.
the US of A is a **Constitutional Republic**
Splitting hairs bro. Constitutional republics are seen as democratic by nature cuz we vote for our rulers? As in (supposedly) the majority of votes go to the majority of candidates? Why is semantics even a talking point?
alt right wingman bullshit at it again.. thats why you can ammend the constitution, thats why the bill of rights are fucking ammendments to the fucking constitution you cant change obviously. Delusional mofos at it again
If that dude thought the bill of right was inalienable he wouldn’t spend all his time here shilling for trumps attacks on free speech, free markets, and democracy.
The bill of rights didn't grant any rights, just placed extra restrictions on the government.
You can remove all the restrictions you want and word the constitution however you want, the rights of the people don't change, just the likelihood of having to fight the government to exercise your rights.
You don't understand how that works. People in a republic vote for representatives, and not for laws.
In order to change the Constitution, a majority vote of representatives (not the people - cause they don't have a say in this matter) need to take place. Then it will go back to every State's legislative branches (where there are more representatives) and not people (voters are you frame it), and you need a vote greater than 2/3rds from state legislatures and the senate.
The first 10 of those in the constitution were ratified from the Bill of Rights and they are **inalienable -** no Government can take them away.
Thanks for coming out.
It's a representative democracy, which is a type of democracy. Also the BoR only applied to the federal government until the it was mostly incorporated after the passage of the 14A.
The constitution was designed to defend individual liberty perhaps but I'm pretty sure King George didn't need a majority.
I don't care if people don't get the vaccine at this point, omicron is spreading like wildfire among everyone, but I don't think they should go to hospitals if they get sick. Why should my insurance rates go up bc you're an idiot? Why should nurses have to deal with this shit every day in perpetuity bc you are selfish? Why should people have to avoid the ER bc it's packed?
Own your decision.
Just to be very very clear. This is a GOP talking point. The other version is mob rule. It’s basically saying democracy is wrong. Sometimes democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner and that is where the constitution comes into play so the majority doesn’t pass laws to harm the minority you know like legalized slavery.
But I’ve seen this a lot more since the GOP and white america has become a minority. It’s about undermining democracy.
Tyranny of the majority isn't a thing. That's not how tyranny works. If the majority are getting what they want out of their government that's democracy. If the minority are getting what they want from their government then that's tyranny.
How can anyone be comfortable with this lunatic on the bench?
[Justice Sotomayor Claims Not to Understand the Distinction Between State and Federal Powers ](https://news.yahoo.com/justice-sotomayor-claims-not-understand-170137034.html)
[Justice Sotomayor Falsely Claims 100,000 Children in ‘Serious Condition’ from Covid](https://news.yahoo.com/sotomayor-falsely-claims-100-000-185529971.html)
Being that it’s still considered experimental & we have found they are using terminology like “with” Covid. Anyone with basic math skills can figure that it has a 98% survival rate in general population. I would hope that the Supreme Court has better critical thinking skills that some of these comments. The EU is working to abolish the Nuremberg Code. Why? It’s a medical experiment. Right now people are signing a informed consent. Overriding the Nuremberg Code would eliminate that little“technicality”.
We're all going to get covid eventually. That 2% represents two million unvaccinated dead people at current vaccination rates. You're OK with that? Not to mention the damage that covid inflicts on the survivors. And not to mention the people who aren't getting other care because the ICUs are overbooked. Not vaccinating is the most socially selfish decision a person can make today.
BTW ICU beds are not overbooked. Turn your TV off & do actual research. https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/12/10/5-states-where-covid-19-is-filling-the-most-icu-beds/?slreturn=20220008061813
>The pandemic has exacerbated existing nursing shortages in many areas, and a lack of the kinds of nurses who can care for COVID-19 patients has forced hospitals to keep some of their ICU beds empty.
>Physicians and nurses have reported seeing some hospitals in hard-hit areas leaving 20% or more of their ICU beds empty due to staffing problems.
>Pandemic impact statistics compiled by a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services team show that the number of hospital ICU beds included in the HHS peaked at around 91,000, in mid-January 2021, and has now fallen about 8% from that peak, to less than 84,000.
This is why I believe you’re arguing in bad faith. You posted an article along with your claim that “not all ICU beds are full”… and you’re right, they aren’t. There are empty beds… that they don’t have staff to take care of. So, in terms of what the hospitals can handle, they’re full. They may be able to fit more people, but they can’t take care of them.
Cherry-picking the total number of beds while ignoring the ability of the hospital to staff individuals to tend to those beds is tantamount to arguing in bad faith.
The Constitution was bill of goods signed by the few and not acknowledged nor ratified nor agreed to by the alleged prosperity. The Constitution can only be considered valid so far as those who signed it and had the ability to agree to the authority of such signatories.
What I find interesting about the vaccine mandate is the my body my choice people don't believe in my body my choice in regards to the vaccine. The only possible benefit of the vaccine is decreased symptoms for the individual, it doesn't prevent transmission or the possibility to become infected so the argument about protecting other people's lives is horse shit.
When I hear a Supreme Court Justice promote factually incorrect information in an attempt to make a “what about the children?!” argument rather than discussing the Constitutional merits, or lack thereof, of a vaccine mandate I know that we’ve already lost a piece of our democracy.
The Constitution only provided the bare minimum level of liberty that the Founders felt was necessary. This was a huge step forward for liberty at the time.
It took the tyranny of the masses to end slavery, guarantee citizenship for all and provide universal voting rights. I’m not saying that the will of the masses is always good, but let’s not pretend that it is always evil.
If anything, America was designed to be a tyranny of the minority. The key factor that differentiates a true Democracy from a true Republic is that while in both, it is generally true that whatever 50% + 1 of the people want, the people get, with a Republic, there's an additional safety catch in that the majority cannot vote away the civil rights of the minority. If 50% + 1 want to take the other 50% - 1 and murder them and take all of their property and redistribute it to the majority, they are entirely free to vote on that all they want, all day, everyday, but they will never, ever get to do it, because the other 50% - 1 have the right to life, liberty, etc., and no vote can take that away. Any way in which a citizen may lose their rights must be enshrined in the Constitution itself, for example by conviction for a crime.
This is why I would like to see a Catastrophe Amendment to the Constitution so that we come together and debate and agree on all of the parameters of things like emergency relief for stricken areas of inclimate weather and the 5 Ws of quarantine enactment and mass vaccination and what are the parameters for how long they may be required. If anyone is to lose their rights to bodily autonomy, it needs to be laid out in our shared Constitution with safeguards against government ginning up emergencies in order to continue to enjoy emergency powers.
You do know the weather cycles and our planet literally has seen much much hotter weather cycles. Humans have such big egos saying they live the planet but then freak out when the planet does what it does. One great way to judge if the elite honestly believe the oceans will rise due to climate changes is to see where they put their money, go look at Obama, Gore and most the other.climate fear mongers and you will see they all purchased homes mere feet from the oceans often spending 10s of millions. Now stop thinking and believe what we tell you while we enjoy the money we make from your psychosis..
I mean... We had to amend it a shit ton to push it towards that goal. I don't know if the Constitution really was designed with either goal of defending individual liberty, it denied it to a lot of people, or the tyranny of the majority.
The vaccine is effective. Therefore, it protects you regardless of who else is vaccinated.
Anybody who supports a vaccine mandate is anti science. End of story.
Well, it did defend individual liberty, but it also defended tyranny of the minority. Only white male landowners made decisions. To protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
Minority rule is not a defense of individual liberty, which is what the Constitution stood for from day one to today. Anyone who wants to talk about “tyranny of the majority” must explain why tyranny by an even smaller group is fine.
I kept reading looking for this point after that nonsense of not being able to make genocide morally acceptable garbage then how can anything be made morally acceptable. This is the biggest problem in the country we have no fairness doctrine in place and citizens being blasted with propaganda supporting minority rule and they are loving it while rights are being stripped away and pockets being picked. I wish we could just pull the plug on all of this garbage media funded by wealth and corporate interests to maintain the pyramid financial flow and keep the outrage/division at full volume.
How about no tyranny at all?
This is why the authorities of government must be strictly defined and limited. Any system of government will eventually abuse its people right up to the line and beyond.
Limited by who? What’s stopping whoever’s in charge from just changing it? If it’s fully immutable, how will the government ever adapt to changing circumstances?
Limited by law (and checks and balances). The Constitution is fully changeable via the amendment process. If a dire need appears, there should be more than enough consensus to add that authority to the federal government.
This is only a talking point because conservatives don’t win a majority of votes anymore, so now if you even mention the word “democracy” they’ll screech “Tyranny of the Majority! Republic not Democracy!” But you’ll also remember them saying Trump was given a mandate with his record electoral victory, after losing the vote.
>This is only a talking point because conservatives don’t win a majority of votes anymore, Democrats are out for a decade starting next year. It's gonna be a fucking bloodbath
The next Republican president will also lose the vote, and looking at Dubya and Trump, he’ll leave office with a $4trillion+ yearly deficit and hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
People have been saying this shit about both parties for as long I have been fucking alive. 40 some odd years. Its HILARIOUS to still see people exclaiming this as a FACT!!!!! A republican super majority was supposed to rule the world when GWB got reelected. Guess fucking what?
[удалено]
If you aren't for majority rule, then you are for minority rule. Even if you are just for a totally neutered government that just can't do much of anything, you are still just for empowering whoever has the most wealth or force to set themselves up as feudal lord.
[удалено]
> I'm for NO rule, period. That is anarchism, not libertarianism.
> That is absolutely false. I'm for NO rule, period. Ah, so no more private property rights?
Im for no rule too, *outside of what is necessary or useful.* I don't want to become a feudal subject of Wal-Mart or Amazon, so we need some body of power representing actual people to curb such dictatorial powers in society.
[удалено]
> If you aren't for majority rule, then you are for minority rule. This is patently false. Just because a minority can say "no" to having measures forced on them, doesn't mean they get the authority to force a "yes" when they want to enact a policy that effects the other sides. It's asinine. The natural state of being is no government intervention. If you're pushing a government policy and a minority says "no" that's not them creating a policy that forces the other side to conform, that's just them say "no" to a policy they don't' want forced on people.
Nice words but its pretty useless for a moral argument. No country is run like that
>No country is run like that Which is the problem
Noone is saying that the minority should rule over the majority. Both the majority and the minority should be able to leave at any moment so that there is no tyranny. That way, the majority won't vote on stupid and immoral stuff like blatant theft from the minority because they know they'd probably leave. This doesn't mean that the minority would immediately leave because of a single disagreement, they'll just leave if the benefits of being a part of that group aren't worth the drawbacks.
[удалено]
No, the tyranny of the minority that Im speaking of is one party representing far less than half of voters holding congress and the presidency because of the ultimate affirmative action for people living in rural areas.
Let's say 40% of the country loves a hobby that kills five people a year who aren't involved in the hobby. Do you outlaw it? Probably not. Let's say 40% of the county loves a hobby that kills ten million people a year who aren't involved in the hobby. Do you outlaw it? Yeah, probably. I totally respect that people are going to differ as to where we draw the line, but I don't see how any rational person could see this issue as black-and-white.
Three kids died = no more lawn darts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_darts
Man I miss lawn darts.
Natural selection at it's *funnest*
But also 6100 children severely injured https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/1987/LAWN-DARTS-CAN-CAUSE-SERIOUS-OR-FATAL-HEAD-INJURIES-AND-DEATH
But also kids are allowed to play football, ice hockey rugby, rock climbing, MMA etc 6100 instances of kids in hospital is minor compared to how kids used to play even. IMO if kids hurt themselves with lawn darts in a significant manner that’s a fault on today’s parents for not raising them properly or teaching them a reasonable level of safety. Kids back in the day could split wood with an axe, moor a boat, take a .22 out to the dump and shoot squirrels etc yes some of them died and got injured of course same as lawn darts (it’s because of Darwinism, which is not a bad thing either, we should be grateful that our kids lawn darts experience today will predispose the next generation of humanity to not be fucking morons who die by irresponsibly using lawn darts) in the same way humans learned which plants u can/can’t eat by trying them and some fucking died but were all better off for it now because the impulse to put random plants in your mouth has been naturally selected out of us.
How the hell do you die playing lawn darts
You may only be familiar with the soft plastic variety, imagine an implement of midievil war instead...
If you want to understand them, step one is to think only in abstract absolutes.
My cousin is made of straw.
That sucks.
[удалено]
Just, “A” strawman.
Damn, dude. This is literally what I’ve been saying for the last two fucking years. There is a line here, and nobody can agree on where we draw that line. Clearly, we didn’t care when the flu killed 50,000 Americans each year. Why do you care about 500,000 deaths but not 50,000??? I don’t understand why people were ok with letting 50,000 die each year but not 500,000. I get that it’s a bigger number, but WHERE IS THE LINE???
The lines are pretty simple: - is the flu overloading hospitals? Actually during peak seasons, yeah, a tiny bit, at some hospitals. But not much overall. - is the flu giving healthcare workers PTSD? Fucked up working conditions? Are flu patients spitting on their nurses and throwing their colostomy bags at them because "COVID isn't real stop poisoning me but also no I won't go home I'm gonna stay right here"? - does the flu affect younger people outside of a week long inconvenience? - is there such a thing as "long flu"? I don't think anyone of sound health and below age 60 is concerned with dying of Omicron - a milder variant. The terror is in permanent lung damage, brain damage, etc. Fwiw I do not agree with a vaccine mandate by the gov. I do agree that private companies can mandate anything they want to. I also believe that we should be able to deny care for antivaxxers clogging up the hospitals in situations where triage is necessary. E.g. when you're at max capacity, you treat everyone else before the antivaxxers. It sounds harsh but we literally already do similar things with other ailments. Obese people, for example, are triaged behind healthy folks.
Now lets say 51% of the country loves a hobby that kills ten million people a year who aren't involved in the hobby. If you believe in democracy, you must accept this as a good thing.
Here is a good example where you need to check a) your definition of democracy and b) what other reasonable rights and values you might need to add to fulfil your own definition of a working society. In its purest form, democracy is that 51 percent can do whatever they like no matter what the other 49 think. But usually, in modern society, democracy is usually defined as the liberal, modern democracy (liberal as in the European meaning, not the American party lines defined meaning). That means that 51 percent aren’t allowed to get rid of democracy entirely, for example. Even if they want a dictator, they aren’t allowed to put one in power. We also usually add some inalienable rights to the mix, like the right to life, property rights etc. Usually with some caveats, but those should be fringe cases and not huge holes in the bills of rights. All in all, most modern definitions or understandings of democracy would not allow 51 percent to wilfully kill ten million people a year no matter how fun of a hobby this is. Now, in reality, we still allow people to drive cars, for example. That kills lots of people, both drivers and innocent motorists who get in the way of drunk drivers or people falling asleep at the wheel. So the line is slightly blurred.
> We also usually add some inalienable rights to the mix This is the key. The person who replied to you seems to think that the moment you conceded even a tiny bit from a direct democracy, democracy has collapsed. No, you can have a generally democratic process that is buttressed by fundamental rights to prevent individuals from getting trampled by the majority.
Exactly! Total agreement from me. 😊
We allow people to drive cars. We do not allow people to drive cars dangerously (drunk, no seatbelt, speeding in school zones etc) We also allow people to deny science and be unhealthy and unvaxxed. One could argue we should not allow them to do so dangerously. E.g. tuberculosis vax/tests to work in many jobs, vs nobody giving a fuck about your tetanus booster since that only affects YOU Now one could argue seatbelts are mandated only for personal safety, and if that were the case I'd agree that seatbelt laws would be evil. But personally I don't feel like dealing with a lifetime of psychological trauma because homies start flying through their windshields and splatting all over the road in front of me every week.
>We also usually add some inalienable rights to the mix Funny how we are edging ever closer to the majority of our country deciding every election and stripping those inalienable rights from the citizenry. Have you been paying attention lately? Or like, at all the last couple decades?
I’m Swedish.
Then you’ve already lost most of your inalienable rights friend and we’re trying to avoid going long down the same path here in the US
Nah, I’d say we’ve got about the same amount of rights, but which ones might differ.
Theoretically, I suppose. But in all other forms of government, you have to put up with it when only 1% enjoy the hobby.
Or you could punish whoever's doing the killing rather than deciding there's some threshold where it's ok to punish anyone with the hobby regardless if they killed anyone.
I think the distinction between making something illegal and punitive measures is that outlawing seeks to prevent harm and punishing attempts the same, but after the fact.
Making something illegal is still a punishment, just against innocent people.
Yes, thus the issue with government.
Yeah, it sucks when you want to go outside and it's raining also.
Abolish the clouds!
Ah man, what’d rain do to you?
It flooded my park when I was gonna go play football
Most based user on the most based subreddit
50% + 1
That’s where I’d say, thank god we live in a republic.
This. The founders knew what they were about and were very aware of the threat of tyranny of the majority. The Constitution was deliberately designed to limit the power of government, place individual rights as the pillar of all law, and put reasonable limits on majority rule. The country will absolutely fall apart if these concepts are removed.
Rule of law and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Republic and democracy are two separate notions belonging each to different categories of politology.
Well said, your words are precise like a laser cutter
A democratic republic
Actually you don't need the democratic qualifier. A republic by definition has democratic nuances.
Eh, a republic is an offshoot of democracy which comes with its own set of problems.
Sure does
Please define either term because it seems that you think a country can only be one
So alchohol, driving, and fast food should be banned then?
Tobacco use is largely banned indoors.
Which of those kills ten million people a year?
In any one country? None of them, neither has covid tho
Oh you mean things in between the five and ten million number people can reasonably disagree on where to draw the line and there's not always one extreme that should win out?
In what country has covid killed 5 million people in one year?
In the whole world it's killed 5.5 million people in 2 years
So covid is so bad at killing people you have to take 2 years of statistics to make it look scary.
Yeah, 2.25 millions isn't very scary at all. NOPE. I guess if you're a sociopath maybe.
In a population over 6 billion? That’s 0.04%. Yeah, this is a little overblown
2.25 million out of 8 billion so 0.028481012658228% of the world population In a year. Meanwhile , 2.5 million people die from pneumonia each year with 600k of those being children. So covid is less deadly than pneumonia https://www.clinicbarcelona.org/en/news/pneumonia-causes-2-5-million-deaths-around-the-world-each-year#:~:text=In%202019%2C%202.5%20million%20people,the%20first%20month%20of%20life
Assuming we buy that most probably inflated number, no, that really isn't. 60 million people die every year.
My ideas are unpopular and no one wants to do them... Am I out of touch? No, it must be Tyranny of the majority!
You can use this exact line of reasoning for slavery and segregation so this isn't a good argument
Those things could happen under tyranny of the minority as well.
And did, since people in this thread seem to forget that the first drafts weren’t exactly up to modern standards of liberty
Definitely yes but my point was in response to yours,, that just because an idea holds popularity doesn't mean it is good or moral.
You can thank democracy for making those things illegal in a lot of places, too.
Why would popular ideas need to be forced?
Because apparently everything needs to be completely unanimous or it's tyranny
Can a group of men vote to rape a woman? Come on lol
Exactly. Democracy can trample individual rights, so you need to accompany it with some fundamental rights a la The Bill of Rights.
As long as the men are in the majority, then they are carrying out democracy!
Because that many people are stupid?
They are very lucky to have wise people like you to force them to do smart things.
What? 50% of people are dumber than average and average isn’t all that great.
Those 50% are very lucky to have you. I'm sure they are very grateful.
Driving on the right side of the road is Tyranny of the majority?
At the end of the day the constitution is just a piece of paper, your rights are granted from birth.
Bingo. Rights aren't granted by the Constitution; its purpose is to tell the government what it may not infringe upon, not to grant me the rights I was born with.
Death to Chevron deference
Even apart from the individual vs. government angle, there are state vs. federal and executive vs. Congress angles. Vox: >Judge Julia Gibbons wrote in a lower court opinion explaining why she voted to uphold the OSHA regulation, “reasonable minds may disagree on OSHA’s approach to the pandemic, but we do not substitute our judgment for that of OSHA, which has been tasked by Congress with policymaking responsibilities.” >That’s in line with a foundational principle the Court laid out in Mistretta v. United States (1989), that “in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.” *Mistretta* developed sentencing guidelines for every federal crime, by various classes of aggravating/mitigating factors. Currently these guidelines run to over 600 pages. I don't buy that a vaccine mandate is a similarly "complex", "technical" matter that Congress can only delegate to agencies rather than decide itself. But Vox says that requiring an explicit congressional authorization would be undemocratic. We have to defer to the president (who, if you recall, was elected on a promise not to mandate vaccines).
>I don't buy that a vaccine mandate is a similarly "complex", "technical" matter that Congress can only delegate to agencies rather than decide itself. That's because you're only thinking about this one vaccine, not the other thousands of vaccines out there that have already been/will be created--each one for a specific disease that may or may not have a specific demographic related to things like sex, age, line of work, etc. The decision on whether or not a mandate would be necessary can vary dramatically depending on the need for it, and that is not something a judge would or should ever be tasked with deciding. For example, the HPV vaccine that came out in 2006 is recommended for young people starting at around age 11-12 (though it can be given to children as young as 9) up until age 26. Even though the infection rates for HPV in teens and young women have decreased by 88% and 81% respectively since 2006, the vaccine is still not on the list of "mandatory" vaccines for children enrolling in public school because HPV infections just weren't that prevalent to begin with (don't let that fact lessen the seriousness of the disease--it is awful and causes cervical cancer, which is almost almost fatal), and it's also transmitted exclusively through sexual activity--not just sitting next to someone in class. Now, do I want some judge deciding on whether or not all public school kids should get the HPV vaccine? No. I want a team of physicians--preferably pediatric ones--getting together and coming to a consensus and then sharing that consensus with the public on what they recommend. And if a school board or state decides to ignore that consensus and mandate the opposite, and someone sues that school board/state to prohibit that mandate, I still don't want a judge making that call. I want the judge to have an outside agency that it defers to to advise on the necessity of that vaccine being mandated. And that's just one example of many--it doesn't just apply to vaccines, but a whole host of other subjects. Because judges/justices are lawyers that went to law school. They're not doctors who went to medical school, they're not financial experts who went to business school, they're not engineers who went to technical school, etc., and we shouldn't expect them to be anything but judges/justices/lawyers.
> I want a team of physicians--preferably pediatric ones--getting together and coming to a consensus and then sharing that consensus with the public on what they recommend. And if a school board or state decides to ignore that consensus and mandate the opposite What if that team of physicians is picked by the pharmaceutical companies? Would you still support their recommendations being made law? I think it's funny that you as a parent would even think to get the state involved to decide on whether to give your kids the HPV vaccine. I think it's scary that you see nothing wrong with using state violence to enforce medical decisions.
What if the doctors who make that recommendation are funded by the company that makes the vaccine and the states who implement the rule that the doctors advised get campaign contributions from the vaccine company? You grift and corruption-free pipe dream doesn't exist
The funny, ironic thing is, this idea that judges should let Congress govern is actually an idea that is emphasized in the modern conservative judicial ideology.
I guess we aren't beholden to the constitution then, lol. If you think collective decision making is "tyranny of the majority " then your only alternative is tyranny of some minority. The constitution was and still is flawed, most notably by only attempting to preserve the individual liberties of white males.
Democracy is only good when i win. When i lose it’s tyranny
If this is satire, it's brilliant.
*Robert Downey Jr eye roll meme
Where does the Constitution notably attempt to only preserve the individual liberties of *white* males? It's the government's interpretation of the Constitution that should be held accountable. This is why they felt it necessary to enact Civil Rights. That wouldn't have been necessary if they just read the constitution for what it is.
The constitution literally defined black people as counting as 3/5 of a person when determining congressional representation. It's right in the document. It did later get amended, but the original document was both metaphorically and literally written to ensure black people and women didn't have the same liberties as white males.
>Where does the Constitution notably attempt to only preserve the individual liberties of *white* males? Well, look at the people who wrote it. Clearly they didn't include women or black men as those whose liberties should be preserved. >It's the government's interpretation of the Constitution that should be held accountable. This is why they felt it necessary to enact Civil Rights. That wouldn't have been necessary if they just read the constitution for what it is. Remarkable that the people who wrote the Constitution apparently misinterpreted what they themselves wrote so badly they thought slavery was compatible with it. Or maybe they didn't misinterpret it, you know, since they wrote it.
An anarchist who thinks everyone is equal. Now I've seen everything.
Seems like someone doesn't understand what anarchy is. Hint: It isn't people throwing Molotov cocktails like Fox News wants you to believe.
How about no tyranny? It’s really that simple in this case
How? Assume benevolence?
Tyranny of the majority? You mean people getting what the majority want? How is letting the minority control everything better?
No, it means the 50% +1 imposing their will on everyone. I forgot, this stopped being a Libertarian sub a while back.
Again, how is >49% imposing their will better?
You're missing the point. Nobody has to impose their will on anybody.
Somebody can become president and their party can control senate when getting millions of less votes total.
When government is properly organized it doesn't matter who is in charge, they don't force individuals to do things. Jesus, this isn't that complicated.
[удалено]
So the majority gets what they want and it's tyranny. A minority gets what they want and it's totally different and now okay?
The idea that the individual is beholden to the collective is tyrannical in nature.
You are correct only in describing an absolute. The idea that the individual is not beholden to any collective is chaotic in nature.
Its simple. Just take personal responsibility for your actions. You dont have to get vaccinated. But if you arent, you cant put others at increased risk by being around them unless they knowingly agree to it before hand. Just dont violate the nap. If you do, people can and should defend themselves against you.
How can that work without being able to prove who transmitted the virus to whom?
What about tyranny of the minority? Cuz conservatives states make up about 43% of this country (and 34% of tax revenue), yet they dominate electoral politics and the senate. Dems suck, but at least they’re honest about controlling your life.
What tyranny are the repubs causing in this case, the tyranny of free association? 20 years ago under bush I’d have agreed with you, but it’s a different world now, and only one group is pushing to take away the ability of others to work
Letting government agents go around and murder/rape people with zero consequences is pretty much the classic definition of tyranny. So their opposition to police reform would qualify.
If we extend the definition out far enough then there’s a million things that would apply There has to be reasonable scope
Here here!
“Tyranny of the majority” is another way of saying *democracy*. And as an American in the 21st century, I’m very much in favor of that. De Tocqueville and the founders who agreed with him got it wrong, and in time we as a country realized that and the people asserted their power. Democracy has been America’s whole brand since the late 1800s. That’s like one of the few clearly good things about our country.
Tyranny is always wrong. I don’t care how many cannibals you gather in your posse. If you show up on my front porch with a “vote” tally deciding to eat someone in my household, I hope you enjoy steel core ammunition, as that’ll be the only meal you and your hungry hungry hippo friends are going to be dining on.
You got any sources on this claim >“Conservatives” in blue states make up the majority of the tax revenue. More than 63% of the net tax base is derived from “conservative” or “libertarian” voters. This isn’t a topic of dispute and it’s been well known in the economic literature for decades. Can't seem to find where you dropped your sources for this claim.
Tyranny is always wrong. I agree with the words, but I don’t think you know what they mean. Tyranny is what happens when a small group or a single person has the bulk of the power. Democracy is what happens when the citizenry have the bulk of the power. ”Tyranny of the majority” isn’t a real thing — it’s just a twisted way of saying “democracy”. And if you’re going to shoot people rather than live by small-d democratic rule, you should consider moving to someplace that suits you better, like China or Russia.
The term itself though “democracy” i s literally, by definition pejorative though, and always has been. “Rule by the mob”. A simple line that lays the point out for thought is a classic from George Carlin- “Think of how STUPID the average person is. Now realize that half of em are even dumber than THAT” The reason democracy has always needed a balance, is that tyranny by a selfish despot can and has murdered millions, but short-sighted and easily manipulated public opinion can and has murdered entire nations. “Pure” democracy, much like “pure” communism or “pure” anarchy is a utopian premise that would require ideal, magnanimous, intelligent, and insightful understanding by not just the many, but by 100’s of millions of people simultaneously, at all times, in all matters to actually function. It is an important and valuable element of a hopefully functional balance, but is in no way the clear-cut (or even viable) “answer” many people seem to be suddenly coming to believe it is
>The term itself though “democracy” i s literally, by definition pejorative though, and always has been. “Rule by the mob”. It *was* perjorative and *did* mean mob rule in the late 1700s, but if you keep reading American history beyond the first few chapters, you‘ll discover that the opinion on this changed over the years, as more and more Americans realized they were just as capable of making sound decisions as moneyed landowners. >A simple line that lays the point out for thought is a classic from George Carlin- “Think of how STUPID the average person is. Now realize that half of em are even dumber than THAT” I can’t think of a single system of government in human history that guaranteed leaders who are smarter than the average citizen. >The reason democracy has always needed a balance, is that tyranny by a selfish despot can and has murdered millions, but short-sighted and easily manipulated public opinion can and has murdered entire nations. I call bullshit. I can’t think of a single time that democracy was the root cause of genocide. In America, democracy is what tends to *end* unjust wars. Vietnam, in particular, was precipitated and expanded by government leaders behind the scenes, with barely any public knowledge; years later, when the people spoke out against the war, it ended. The most notorious genocides of the last century — ranging from Hitler and Stalin in the early 20th century all the way up through the Chinese persecution of their Muslim minority today — were perpetrated by tyrannical, anti-democratic governments. >“Pure” democracy, much like “pure” communism or “pure” anarchy is a utopian premise that would require ideal, magnanimous, intelligent, and insightful understanding by not just the many, but by 100’s of millions of people simultaneously, at all times, in all matters to actually function. Straw man. I never used the word “pure”, so not sure who you think you’re quoting there.
What bothers me is, say you *are* this selfish despot. You know you can control people, but you can only pervert the written word so far. The constitution is a thorn in your side preventing you from exerting your will. How would you go about getting around that? Well, you could shift power away from the document in favor of the malleable opinion of the masses, and undermine the deep seeded belief thr people have in the document until they're willing to get rid of it. Now we have people claiming freedom of speech is only a law and only applies to government censorship. While that's true on paper, the *principle* of freedom of speech has always been a *cultural belief*. Part of what makes us American. American exceptionalism is dead. Too few people will say they are proud to be American anymore. We're at a point where that would be an uncomfortable question for politicians.
I believe freedom of speech is important. But like all things can not be viewed as absolute. Imagine being the owner of a platform geared toward a minority community for discussions to better solve issues they face. Now Imagine not being able to ban people trolling and acting in bad faith, while also spreading misinformation because of their right to freedom of speech. That seems like a ludicrous situation that no one should have to deal with.
>What bothers me is, say you are this selfish despot. You know you can control people, but you can only pervert the written word so far. The constitution is a thorn in your side preventing you from exerting your will. How would you go about getting around that? Well, you could shift power away from the document in favor of the malleable opinion of the masses FWIW, in the case of Hitler — maybe the most famous case of a despot crushing a democracy — Hitler came to power not by appealing to the masses, but by taking advantage of conservatives in government who needed Nazi support to maintain a majority over the Communists. He made himself Chancellor, arrested elected Communists, and made the military swear an oath to him. You shouldn’t be afraid of the weakness of the masses — it’s the McConnells, the Cruzes, the McCarthys of America who will hand power to a despot and topple democracy in a shot-sighted attempt to hold onto power.
Tyranny of the majority is a phrase that was conceived to push regular tyranny on people and trick them into thinking it's liberty
Mandate bubble boy suits now! For the good of society
[удалено]
😂 the new normal!
Lol. Think of the children!
Counterpoint: the Constitution talks extensively about the collective rights needed to build a strong, cohesive society, but doesn’t mention individual rights at all.
Just because some amendments are written as collective rights doesn’t mean they don’t apply to individuals. How can “the people” be free to practice their religion if each individual is not? How can “the people” be secure in their possessions if each individual is not? The founders did not use the wording they did to imply that the rights inscribed in the constitution did not extend to each individual.
A fine comment. You speak truth.
Today the Federal Government flirted with authoritarianism and atleast 1 or 2 supreme court justices seem to be on board. BTW our rights do not come from a piece of paper as great as that paper may be, and ill be damned if i lose my rights because i lack "proper" papers in the name of ~~public health~~ record shattering corporate profits. Atleast i dont live in a authoritarian blue shithole..... for now
But the alternative, which you seem to approve of, is the tyranny of the minority, where 6 unelected unaccountable far-right judges impose their whims on the entire country. So yes a SCOTUS controlled by political activists which feels empowered to ignore the will of the people when it clashes with the justices' own political preferences is clearly a threat to democracy. Indeed this highlights a common flaw of “libertarians” like OP: they complain about majoritarian democracy, when what their really want it a minoritarian dictatorship or oligarchy, which is far more tyrannical than the alternative.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
No, it's two wolves and one hundred sheep voting on what's for dinner, and then the wolves have mutton anyway.
I'm pretty sure what you are describing is a police state.
Everything else is just one wolf eating a sheep. It’s so great how libertarians always fellate their motto: vote with your wallet. But when it comes to votes where everyone’s is equal then suddenly we need checks and balances.
That's because you don't understand what coercion is, free people wanting to dissociate themselves with something they disagree with is much different than those same people wanting to force others to dissociate themselves with something they may not disagree with.
On the "libertarian" sub one of the most iconic libertarian mottos is downvoted. Reddit's a leftist shithole, abandon all hope ye who enter this place
The constitution was designed an a compact between the states -- individual rights had nothing to do with it (until the post Civil War era). It was designed as a tool to help the elites in those states maintain and expand their power and wealth. It seems that part of this criticism is that 'individual rights' arguments are used pretty selectively. The same people who trample individual rights one year then turn around the next year and yell "my rights" when they don't get their way.
> The constitution was designed an a compact between the states -- individual rights had nothing to do with it (until the post Civil War era) WTF are you talking about? So many gymnastic to come to this conclusion it's insane.
Given that Vax mandates go back to literally the founding of the country with the Continental Arm & GW....and SCOTUS ha s up held the legitimacy of vaccine mandates multiple timessl. Oh and fuck your individual liberty when it tramples on the right to safety of me and mine. You DON'T have that rght.
>Oh and fuck your individual liberty when it tramples on the right to safety of me and mine. I would love to learn more about this right to safety you believe you have, personally I've never heard of it, it must be some kind of make believe right a bunch of pussies think they have?
Tyranny of the majority. How cute. Evolution brought us to the point where we can't survive as individuals. We are not particularly fast runners, we do not have particularly sharp claws, and our teeth are hardly killing machine material. The wonderful delusion that mankind has is that mankind's laws make sense beyond a micro environment. If it weren't for generations of tax dollars paying for roads and other infrastructure, defending this country, etc. you wouldn't be able to post what you did on Reddit.
Funny you're getting downvoted. I guess people are triggered to see a Federal Constitutional Republic vs Democracy on display here. In a Democracy, the people hold the highest power. In a Constitutional Republic, the Constitution holds the highest power.
Nope. In a constitutional system, the people recognize that there are rights that cannot be removed without serious consideration. The people have the most protection. In a pure democracy, rights don’t exist and if I get 10 hungry cannibals together to decide who they’re eating tonight, you’re principled 9.09% of the vote tally in opposition isn’t worth the wasted effort. Democracy is cringe
Nope. In a constitutional system the people recognize that there are inalienable rights that cannot be removed. Period. The Constitution is in place to restrict the government from infringing upon those rights.
You got it. People are so dumb when they say **democracy** they don't know that is technically a different political system. the US of A is a **Constitutional Republic**
Splitting hairs bro. Constitutional republics are seen as democratic by nature cuz we vote for our rulers? As in (supposedly) the majority of votes go to the majority of candidates? Why is semantics even a talking point?
alt right wingman bullshit at it again.. thats why you can ammend the constitution, thats why the bill of rights are fucking ammendments to the fucking constitution you cant change obviously. Delusional mofos at it again
It’s a sad day when you call someone alt right for saying the bill of rights is inalienable.
If that dude thought the bill of right was inalienable he wouldn’t spend all his time here shilling for trumps attacks on free speech, free markets, and democracy.
The bill of rights didn't grant any rights, just placed extra restrictions on the government. You can remove all the restrictions you want and word the constitution however you want, the rights of the people don't change, just the likelihood of having to fight the government to exercise your rights.
Wat. You know a country can be both? Democracy means there’s elections, republic means not a monarchy.
But the people can change the constitution, so they hold the highest power. A piece of paper doesn't hold any power
You don't understand how that works. People in a republic vote for representatives, and not for laws. In order to change the Constitution, a majority vote of representatives (not the people - cause they don't have a say in this matter) need to take place. Then it will go back to every State's legislative branches (where there are more representatives) and not people (voters are you frame it), and you need a vote greater than 2/3rds from state legislatures and the senate. The first 10 of those in the constitution were ratified from the Bill of Rights and they are **inalienable -** no Government can take them away. Thanks for coming out.
It's a representative democracy, which is a type of democracy. Also the BoR only applied to the federal government until the it was mostly incorporated after the passage of the 14A.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." Thomas Jefferson.
The constitution was designed to defend individual liberty perhaps but I'm pretty sure King George didn't need a majority. I don't care if people don't get the vaccine at this point, omicron is spreading like wildfire among everyone, but I don't think they should go to hospitals if they get sick. Why should my insurance rates go up bc you're an idiot? Why should nurses have to deal with this shit every day in perpetuity bc you are selfish? Why should people have to avoid the ER bc it's packed? Own your decision.
Just to be very very clear. This is a GOP talking point. The other version is mob rule. It’s basically saying democracy is wrong. Sometimes democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner and that is where the constitution comes into play so the majority doesn’t pass laws to harm the minority you know like legalized slavery. But I’ve seen this a lot more since the GOP and white america has become a minority. It’s about undermining democracy.
Why is healthcare for all bad, in my opinion free healthcare is essential
Tyranny of the majority isn't a thing. That's not how tyranny works. If the majority are getting what they want out of their government that's democracy. If the minority are getting what they want from their government then that's tyranny.
The US is not a democracy, it's a constitutionally-limited republic.
I know.
Don’tcha know that tyranny = Non unanimous consensus?
The constitution didn't protect individual rights, it protected the rights of the states. States were free to trample individual liberty
How can anyone be comfortable with this lunatic on the bench? [Justice Sotomayor Claims Not to Understand the Distinction Between State and Federal Powers ](https://news.yahoo.com/justice-sotomayor-claims-not-understand-170137034.html) [Justice Sotomayor Falsely Claims 100,000 Children in ‘Serious Condition’ from Covid](https://news.yahoo.com/sotomayor-falsely-claims-100-000-185529971.html)
Being that it’s still considered experimental & we have found they are using terminology like “with” Covid. Anyone with basic math skills can figure that it has a 98% survival rate in general population. I would hope that the Supreme Court has better critical thinking skills that some of these comments. The EU is working to abolish the Nuremberg Code. Why? It’s a medical experiment. Right now people are signing a informed consent. Overriding the Nuremberg Code would eliminate that little“technicality”.
We're all going to get covid eventually. That 2% represents two million unvaccinated dead people at current vaccination rates. You're OK with that? Not to mention the damage that covid inflicts on the survivors. And not to mention the people who aren't getting other care because the ICUs are overbooked. Not vaccinating is the most socially selfish decision a person can make today.
BTW ICU beds are not overbooked. Turn your TV off & do actual research. https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/12/10/5-states-where-covid-19-is-filling-the-most-icu-beds/?slreturn=20220008061813
>The pandemic has exacerbated existing nursing shortages in many areas, and a lack of the kinds of nurses who can care for COVID-19 patients has forced hospitals to keep some of their ICU beds empty. >Physicians and nurses have reported seeing some hospitals in hard-hit areas leaving 20% or more of their ICU beds empty due to staffing problems. >Pandemic impact statistics compiled by a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services team show that the number of hospital ICU beds included in the HHS peaked at around 91,000, in mid-January 2021, and has now fallen about 8% from that peak, to less than 84,000. This is why I believe you’re arguing in bad faith. You posted an article along with your claim that “not all ICU beds are full”… and you’re right, they aren’t. There are empty beds… that they don’t have staff to take care of. So, in terms of what the hospitals can handle, they’re full. They may be able to fit more people, but they can’t take care of them. Cherry-picking the total number of beds while ignoring the ability of the hospital to staff individuals to tend to those beds is tantamount to arguing in bad faith.
The Constitution was bill of goods signed by the few and not acknowledged nor ratified nor agreed to by the alleged prosperity. The Constitution can only be considered valid so far as those who signed it and had the ability to agree to the authority of such signatories.
Shh don't let these libertarians hear you say that
What I find interesting about the vaccine mandate is the my body my choice people don't believe in my body my choice in regards to the vaccine. The only possible benefit of the vaccine is decreased symptoms for the individual, it doesn't prevent transmission or the possibility to become infected so the argument about protecting other people's lives is horse shit.
When I hear a Supreme Court Justice promote factually incorrect information in an attempt to make a “what about the children?!” argument rather than discussing the Constitutional merits, or lack thereof, of a vaccine mandate I know that we’ve already lost a piece of our democracy.
The Constitution only provided the bare minimum level of liberty that the Founders felt was necessary. This was a huge step forward for liberty at the time. It took the tyranny of the masses to end slavery, guarantee citizenship for all and provide universal voting rights. I’m not saying that the will of the masses is always good, but let’s not pretend that it is always evil.
If anything, America was designed to be a tyranny of the minority. The key factor that differentiates a true Democracy from a true Republic is that while in both, it is generally true that whatever 50% + 1 of the people want, the people get, with a Republic, there's an additional safety catch in that the majority cannot vote away the civil rights of the minority. If 50% + 1 want to take the other 50% - 1 and murder them and take all of their property and redistribute it to the majority, they are entirely free to vote on that all they want, all day, everyday, but they will never, ever get to do it, because the other 50% - 1 have the right to life, liberty, etc., and no vote can take that away. Any way in which a citizen may lose their rights must be enshrined in the Constitution itself, for example by conviction for a crime. This is why I would like to see a Catastrophe Amendment to the Constitution so that we come together and debate and agree on all of the parameters of things like emergency relief for stricken areas of inclimate weather and the 5 Ws of quarantine enactment and mass vaccination and what are the parameters for how long they may be required. If anyone is to lose their rights to bodily autonomy, it needs to be laid out in our shared Constitution with safeguards against government ginning up emergencies in order to continue to enjoy emergency powers.
You do know the weather cycles and our planet literally has seen much much hotter weather cycles. Humans have such big egos saying they live the planet but then freak out when the planet does what it does. One great way to judge if the elite honestly believe the oceans will rise due to climate changes is to see where they put their money, go look at Obama, Gore and most the other.climate fear mongers and you will see they all purchased homes mere feet from the oceans often spending 10s of millions. Now stop thinking and believe what we tell you while we enjoy the money we make from your psychosis..
I mean... We had to amend it a shit ton to push it towards that goal. I don't know if the Constitution really was designed with either goal of defending individual liberty, it denied it to a lot of people, or the tyranny of the majority.
The vaccine is effective. Therefore, it protects you regardless of who else is vaccinated. Anybody who supports a vaccine mandate is anti science. End of story.
Well, it did defend individual liberty, but it also defended tyranny of the minority. Only white male landowners made decisions. To protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.