The principle of democracy and its limits.

[MrFun]

There is continual tension between allowing for legitimate democratic processes and respecting safeguards against hateful mob rule.

A few Polytoners on here find that a democratic process in which the majority group deprives another group of people their civil rights is perfectly acceptable - allow for democratic process purely for the sake of the principle of democracy. These people do not seem to understand that there are dangers with this blind clinging to the principle of democratic process at ALL costs. They see the black and white, but do not see the shades of gray.

Should desegregation and legalization of interracial marriage had been put up to the popular vote in 1950s and 1960s? Should the federal government had waited until the majority of people - including majority of white people in South - supported desegregation and legal recognition of interracial marriage?

I'd like to know what your limit is in regard to the principle of the democratic process.

[Berzerker]

so yer unhappy with majority rule, welcome to the majority

[Traianvs]

Democracy isn't all about majorities. The majority isn't always right, dixit Plato and I agree completely. That is also why referenda should be avoided at all costs. When the masses have to decide on a policy issue directly, their opinion on that issue will be confounded with lots of other unrelated issues.

The Dutch 'no' to the EU Constitutional Treaty comes to mind.

A 'democratic' majority opposing a policy issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be executed. The people have a lack of detailed or technical knowledge on most things anyway. That's why representatives decide for them. And also why the representatives often vote differently than the entire population would've done.

[MrFun]

Traianvs, but what about your thoughts on what happened in California with Proposition 8?

[DarkCloud]

Heavens, democracy is limited.

But the strength of it is that generally people feel self-actualized and supportive of the government when they believe their voice is being heard.

Therefore, they will accept some curtailments on their liberties if on the whole they and their society benefit.

Democracy only works if people believe it works and believe that it serves the majority's interests.

(Admittedly AMERICAN democracy believes in preserving the interests and rights of the minority as well... thus compromises such as civil unions (which I believe fall a bit short of being fully workable since they *could* be rescinded at any time, but which are politically workable), are a great idea since they ensure respect for the views of the gay minority as well as the religious minority.)

A purpose of democracy is to find consensus and to force as little as possible. Some would argue that democracy and capitalism go hand in hand, considering how the US and Adam Smith's book were created at much the same time- and the root belief of capitalism is to eliminate forced coercion- allow people to live and let live, and then they will be happy and productive.

People need to learn to subsume their desires, urges, and demands to enforce things on others to make democracy work or else it becomes a rowdy mob, marching, rioting, demanding rights and restricting rights of individuals and other groups at will. (Note: One could assume that gay domestic partner benefits paid for by the public do infringe on the rights of taxpayers in that location who do not believe that gay people should be married. This argument seems silly, but it can be made when rights actually do conflict.)

I am not going to say which group here is right or wrong since it's an issue of Constitutional law which means such a learned discussion would by necessity be of the length of a typical Supreme court opinion (60-80 pages); but in general a few things seem to be true:

All groups in america-
1) Homosexuals
2) Far-Right Religious people,
3) etc.

Appear to believe they have a sense of entitlement to force their beliefs into the mainstream, much as the civil rights crusaders and their opponents believed.

Additionally, it is odd that Americans today are no happier than they were before segregation ended, or before womens' liberation happened. This is sad. Perhaps though, in the surveys they did not interview blacks or women? But one thing to realize is that people are happy based on their expectations. Therefore, if religious people expected not to be "oppressed" by married gays and got used to the marriages, they could be happy. Or if gays believed that civil unions were equivalent of marriage (which they are not), then they could be happy with the status quo as well.

Arguably, gay marriage would open up rights and not infringe on anyone else's rights, similar to the rise in civil rights coexistence as people became acclimated and acculturated to interaction. This is probably true.

However, also arguably, unlike gay marriage court cases, desegregation was put up to vote, with the 14th and the 15th amendments effectively. Plessy v. Ferguson merely misinterpreted the amendments' impact- Brown v. Board's 1954 interpretation was how it should have been interpreted in 1896- in Plessy, the courts screwed up, but Congress and the people were correct back in the 1860s/70s.

[MrFun]

DarkCloud, that's a fine post you made.

With one of your points in particular, on civil rights activists wanting to force their will on everyone - I agree in that equal marriage rights should not, and in fact, does not, force churches to marry certain couples.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by MrFun
Traianvs, but what about your thoughts on what happened in California with Proposition 8?

Unrelated to the democarcy issue I would say it's a travesty: actually taking away rights is just unheard of.

I gather that African-Americans and the religious right contributed a lot to the success of proposition 8. Another referendum in which interest groups decide the vote. I really doubt a real majority would accept the proposition if everyone in California was to be polled. But okay that's democracy and we can't have it any other way.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Unrelated to the democarcy issue I would say it's a travesty: actually taking away rights is just unheard of.

I gather that African-Americans and the religious right contributed a lot to the success of proposition 8. Another referendum in which interest groups decide the vote. I really doubt a real majority would accept the proposition if everyone in California was to be polled. But okay that's democracy and we can't have it any other way.

Yep, by definition what happened in California was a democratic process - in my opinion, this was mob rule as it resulted in demonizing a vulenerable minority group and taking away one of their civil rights.

It's tragic what will happen to the gay and lesbian couples there who have already legally married. 18,000 marriages now are going to be declared illegitimate.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Heavens, democracy is limited.

But the strength of it is that generally people feel self-actualized and supportive of the government when they believe their voice is being heard.

This doesn't apply to democracy only. When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan in a theocracy, they had broad support (as well as stark opposition, but that has more to do with the strong tradition of rural independance towards central government) with a large group of the people.

People will be supportive if their voice is the same as the government's, but you don't need democracy in order to have that.

On the other hand, most people in Belgium don't agree with the government's policies, but our democracy still functions well enough, and given the current circumstances that's something

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by MrFun


Yep, by definition what happened in California was a democratic process - in my opinion, this was mob rule as it resulted in demonizing a vulenerable minority group and taking away one of their civil rights.

It's tragic what will happen to the gay and lesbian couples there who have already legally married. 18,000 marriages now are going to be declared illegitimate.

Oh, the proposition is also retroactive?? I would have thought those marriages were legal back then, so they would remain to be forever.

But maybe it's better to wait with such more progressive laws regarding gay rights when a majority is in favour. People have to be ready for it.
Like... nobody in my country would even dream of taking away those rights right now, even the Christian-democrats (except for the extreme right racists bigots of course). Nobody thinks it's an issue at all. We're slowly expanding the euthanasia law more and more too. Not too quickly, but step by step. Every time there is a public debate to gauge the support, and like that incremental steps forward are taken by politicians for the past decade. It works, and it's democratic too. We just don't use the horrible referenda

[MrFun]

If only United States was more civilized as your country is, Traianvs.

[Naked Gents Rut]

MrFun doesn't actually care about minority rights. He's perfectly fine with persecuting minority groups that he doesn't belong to.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Traianvs

This doesn't apply to democracy only. When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan in a theocracy, they had broad support (as well as stark opposition, but that has more to do with the strong tradition of rural independance towards central government) with a large group of the people.

People will be supportive if their voice is the same as the government's, but you don't need democracy in order to have that.

On the other hand, most people in Belgium don't agree with the government's policies, but our democracy still functions well enough, and given the current circumstances that's something

Perhaps I was not clear enough, I am not a blind supporter of democracy, first of all- I can greatly respect benevolent dictatorships and until Putin and Chavez went beyond the pale did respect both for their accomplishments, and ideals respectively.

If people had just accepted the Taliban's harsh rule, then they could have been happy, and that's the most important thing. As a Sheryl Crowe song said- "It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you have."

Belgium's democracy works? Okaaay. Isn't Walloonistan breaking away?

That being said, I went on to say about democracy that American democracy, at least, was founded on the belief and recognition that true rule isn't by the "majority", true rule respects the basic human rights of the "minorities". In American democracy, no minority is supposed to infringe upon the individual rights of any other- whether that minority be "rich white guys" , "black nationalists" , etc. Everyone has a chance to self-actualize in a true democracy, and their interests have to be balanced- such things *might* happen in other forms of government, but sadly, when you have one religion, or one "race", or one point of view solely running your country and making all the decisions, then you risk stagnation, depression, or demagoguery. Some would argue one-party rule by the Republicans lead to types of demagoguery; others would argue that Putin and Chavez have reached that state.

It's a difficult issue.

--
Mr. Fun, you shouldn't worry too much about Proposition 8. I'm fairly certain that because the courts legalized gay marriage before the proposition, that a new case litigating the matter will reach the appeals court under Equal Protection grounds and likely be decided in your favor. The courts have been quite willing to "make up" fundamental rights.

Notably however, gay marriage appears to be on the level of intermediate scrutiny along with women's/gender rights, which have been upheld sometimes (US v. VA (1996)), and struck other times (US v. Morrison 2000- the VAWA rape case).

The absence of O'Connor from the Supreme Court indicates that if the case reached the court, it would be decided against gay marriage. However, OC may also have voted against permitting gay marriage in California- Although she is a proponent of Equal protection; she respects state's rights to make their decisions on what constitutes good laws.

The Heller decision (DC-guns case- incorporation of the 2nd amendment) indicates that the case might fail if it reached the supreme court. In that case, gun rights of self protection were allowed because they were basically deemed an "implied right that has long been held in the country." In Contrast, gay rights have not long been held in the country. BUT if the issue was framed larger, in the sense of a "right to marry who you will" then the court COULD find an immutable right.

Interestingly, the Appeals circuit courts are split regarding certain immutable rights related to sexual privacy. For example, the VA supreme court I believe said that it was understandable that a state forbade the sale of sex toys. However, the 2nd circuit??? (texas) said that there is a "right to sexual privacy" thus a sex toy shop could not be illegal.

So, in Texas, if a gay marriage case reached the appeals court, homosexual advocates might very well succeed. It remains to be seen how the case would be determined in California.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Traianvs
The Dutch 'no' to the EU Constitutional Treaty comes to mind.

and the french and the irish 'no' votes too i presume. pro-europeans seem to have a very hard time accepting that the direction the EU is headed is deeply unpopular with much of the population.

i like the american system of allowing people to vote directly on certain issues come election day. take an issue, campaign for it, people can have a debate about it and decide for themselves. that's exactly how democracy is supposed to work. if one side loses, then they only have themselves to blame.

(correct me if i'm wrong) but wasn't it the case in california that a right for gays to get married was introduced by the courts rather than the legislature. if so i can see why people voted against it. personally, i support gay marriage, but i would say that the proper place to introduce such reforms is the legislature.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
MrFun doesn't actually care about minority rights. He's perfectly fine with persecuting minority groups that he doesn't belong to.

We already had a thread with for this particular discussion.


On topic - so what are your limits in wanting a democratic process? If the result of a democratic process takes away a minority group's civil rights what rights are "okay" to take away in your interest of the principle of democracy?