Immanuel Kant explains, that democracy (direct democracy) is really a dictatorship of the majority over the individual. This is really a interesting way of looking at majority style governments; democracy, communism, populism.
What are your thoughts about majority rule?
A good topic about this issue is gay marriage. California is dealing with this issue right now with Prop 8.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i feel like you and i had this conversation when we were talking about prop 8 a while ago. maybe not. anyways, kant is right (for once). Democracy is a type of utilitarianism i would say, and the "tyranny of the majority" is one of the biggest dangers of a utilitarian system. In our gov't i think the hope is for the judicial system to keep us from such a tyranny and to correct correct us when we have erred. Problem is different people have different beliefs about how the judicial system should act. Sadly in the prop 8 instance, it sounds like the justices are going to allow the tyranny of the majority to stand.
ReplyDeletei think that we have seen a realization if this flaw of democracy in roughly the last 125 years. There are so many advocacy groups for people whose voices are drowned out by the majority. Their forum seems to most often be the courtroom and that is probably where i get the idea that the judicial system is working to solve the issue. Solve is probably the wrong word though because you can't exactly solve a problem that is built into the system without drastically changing the system. Like trying to solve the problem of exhaust on an internal combustion engine.
that was just another pile of ramblings but hopefully it can move the discussion along. What is it you read of kant to spark this idea?
We may have touched upon this issue. I believe it is a question that most people never really ask themselves and therefore, at times, contradict themselves. It's one of those base questions that we should ask ourselves.
ReplyDeleteAt first I was all for majority rule, but Kant's idea of democracy pointed out the major flaw in majority rule. Individual rights are above all and are subject to nothing, not even the common good. Democracy suppresses individual rights through the majority rule. It's the same as if only a few were ruling over the majority. They are both just as bad.
But I have issues with Prop 8 and other scenarios like it. Under the California constitution the population can vote to create laws, by-passing the state government. Stem-cell research was passed this way (and there was little protest on the left that it attacked the individual rights of the religious. This is the contradiction I see. If one agrees with the law of the majority, therefore is part of the majority, they have no problem.)
The more I have thought about it the more I agree with you that the courts are the protectors of individual rights from the majority. But is it not the role of the courts to decide if something is constitutional or unconstitutional and nothing more? If the courts could rule one way or the other and depending on which side the decide make it into law are they not attacking the individual rights of the majority? Example, the courts in Iowa this week decided that a ban on gay-marriage was unconstitutional, and by them saying that legalized gay-marriage. Thus they dictated to the people of Iowa their own belief of the law. This is just as dangerous on individual rights as a majority rule.
I like your idea of the courts as defenders of the minority. I believe that is exactly what the courts are meant to do. So the courts defend the minority, but what defends the majority? Should not the majority have a defender? I think with Prop 8 that the majority attacked the individual rights of gays, but if the court decides that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, I believe that still does not mean gays can get married in california based on that decision. The courts are only there to declare something constitutional or not. They cannot propose laws and execute those laws upon the people. So then what needs to be done in california for gay-marriage?
There would need to be a law proposed by the state legislature or another proposition of the people that says gay-marriage is legal. It then needs to be passed and then when/if it is passed the courts then say it Is constitutional and it becomes law. This way the majority's rights are not taken away from them and the minority’s rights are not taken away from them. This is what happened in vermont. It was passed into law by the state legislator. (now the courts can decided if that is constitutional or not, but I'm sure they will see that it is).
This flaw in democracy I think is why Republics are still the best form of government for protecting the individual right of each and every citizen.
sorry for the long response.
So i'm gonna try to just make a response paragraph for paragraph here. This was a good one.
ReplyDeleteKant has a couple of dumb ideas, especially when it comes to his ethics. Don't get me wrong, he's a brilliant guy. That last part was one of the things that i thought was ridiculous about the communist manifesto. There is so much talk about flipping the system on its head but then it is just the same system with a different group of oppressive ruling people. This part will apply to the post as a whole but i think that even though an individual and the majority has a right to create laws as the see fit, they do not have a right to take away rights from others so, and maybe this is utilitarian of me, lets say we give 1 point for exercising a right and minus 1 point for stepping on someone else's right, the (in this case) gays have 1 point and the majority has 0 so the majority loses. maybe that is really lame.
I guess i'll start with a rabbit trail on stem cell research. It doesn't directly infringe on the rights of the religious. I could see if their rights to protest about the issue were taken away, then there would be an infringement but i don't see how stem cell research is tied to their rights. It would be stretch to say that it is a part of the free practice of their religion (unless the religion itself worships...not stem cell research). Just because the morals of their specific religion are against stem cell research doesn't mean that allowing it interferes with their right to practice.
i think that as far as the courts are concerned, it is one of those issues where you have to concede a little in exchange for balance. One of the responsibilities of the courts is to keep the majority from taking away the rights of the minority. So in doing that, yes, they have to step on the toes of the majority at times. This is the eternal struggle of the courts: what to do when 2 people's rights are in conflict. Because the courts are not constantly stepping on the rights of the majority, it is an acceptable practice. They only exercise (and only have the power to exercise) their power when the issue is brought before them. They can't actively seek the issues.
One of the problems(?) with the judicial branch is they are the end. There aren't really any checks on it but itself at a later date (i.e. plessy v fergusson in 1896 and then later Brown v Board of Education in 1957). That being said, the majority doesn't need a defender. They defend themselves. This is a reiteration of what i said earlier but i'm doing this one paragraph for paragraph. The courts don't have the power to confront a law. So take the vermont law, someone will have to create a test case or an organization will have to file a suit. So if no one does anything, the law stays on the book.
sorry, i tried to do it from memory but the brown case was '54 not '57.
ReplyDeleteYou are right about the stem cell issue. It really isn't taking their rights away. While a ban on marriage would.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good thing that the courts are the end. If there wasn't an end then the issue would never be "solved". I agree that those two cases you referenced are sad that it took the courts so long to correct, but I think that is a good thing to keep the laws clear cut so everyone can understand them. I know that, if one is against the court ruling they would be against this absolute ruling, but on the flip side if one was for the ruling they would be relieved that the issue is over. This doesn't mean the debate is over, as we see a court ruling can be over-turned.
I do disagree with your stance that the majority doesn't need a defender. There have been many times in the past where a few control the many. Example the Old Kingdom in France around 1780s, 98% of the population had no say in the government hence the revolution. I think I lean more towards the majority getting more say than the minority. Maybe this is cold-hearted. But I feel if the majority wants plan A and a minority group wants plan X the society should go with plan A. However, if plan A steps on the rights of the minority then the courts should take a look at it. But I still feel the majority should pull a little bit more weight. The way I see it is, it is the lesser of two evils if the majority is in control than if the minority is in control. Although I still really don't want either of them with absolute control.
I understand your point system. But it is a numbers game. In this case lets say there are 100 people involved. 2 of them are gay and 20 of them don't care and 78 don't want gays to get married. If you keep the scoring for 1 point for each group Gays get 1 and the 78 people get 0. This is somewhat like the block-voting style the French used before the revolution. There were three groups, The Super-rich, the priests, and the Rest of the people. Each group got one vote. So the ratio of population to vote went like this; the super-rich were 10:1, the priests were 150:1, and the Rest were 1 million:1. This seems a little unfair. The Rich had more power than the millions. Now for our issue, So the minority won, which means 2 people won! 20 people really don't care. but the majority lost, which means 78 people lost. Is this really a good system for the 78 people. But the problem is the rights of the 2 people are crushed, so what happens? Here I'm at a road block.
True, there are and have been times when the few have controlled the many but to speak of those instances would be to change the conversation. I was talking about the majority in a democratic society, not just in general. The majority in a democracy is its own defender.
ReplyDeleteAs for the point system, it is not one point per vote. I think my point system/analogy was not really clear. I understand that if the 2 got their way it would be at the expense of the majority and that doesn't make a lot of sense. I usually side with the utilitarian solution so i agree with you that for the most part, what the majority says goes. But the hitch is when the majority is being excessively oppressive. In such cases, the majority forfeits their right to control the situation by vote and must acquiesce to the decision of the courts which will hopefully be one that ensure the fairness and equality for all parties involved.