undefined | Better HN

0 pointsadventured3y ago0 comments

Democracy isn't the enemy of might makes right at all.

In actual democratic systems, the stronger great majority (eg the 75% or 90%) can do anything they want to with a weak minority. There are many prominent examples of democratic systems being used to implement might makes right via majority abuse of the minority.

You have to intentionally neuter democratic systems with strict constitutions that protect individual rights, to prevent might makes right from always taking over democratic systems. You have to put very strong constraints in place to prevent the stronger majority from harming the weaker minority; you have to put the democratic majority in a straight-jacket that limits their possible actions for the protection of the minority.

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

exceptione3y ago· 2 in thread

I don´t agree with your wording. You sound like that especially in a democracy the minorities get crushed. But its the democracies that build upon the core idea of alienable human rights, that gives you voting power but also guarantees as an individual. It is no wonder that you will find such constitutions in democracies. Thats why I said trias politica.

I encourage you to think critically and at the same time ask you to cherish what you have. It is you duty to defend democracy and keep it functioning, or else you will lose it. I am not saying that do you do that personally, but I see a lot of spoiled people in the west that shit on their own chair, by dismissing democracy, even sometimes equaling it with autocratic regimes. Those don´t know what they ask for.

ncmncm3y ago

The notion of inalienable human rights is, specifically, opposed to democracy. Democracy needs to be subordinated to that more fundamental principle.

They are often associated only because places where democracy is strong also tend to acknowledge human rights, at least in the abstract. (Obviously autocrats will not acknowledge it.) But it was, and is, often not so. Ask any Jim Crow victim. Or widow of a police violence victim.

exceptione3y ago

I think your outrage over specific transgressions got the better of you, turning you to black-white thinking. It's a fallacy.

If someones right got trampled, that is something to take to the court. The law is there to protect the single man or minority from 'the terror of the majority'.

That's why we mean with democracy not just the ability to vote, but also the rule of law . We also mean the trias politica: law making powers, executive power, and judiciary power al separated.

No one said that in a democracy everything will be perfect. It requires work. It at least gives you the tools to improve it. It is a living system.

1 more reply

andrekandre3y ago· 2 in thread

  > You have to put very strong constraints in place to prevent the stronger majority from harming the weaker minority; you have to put the democratic majority in a straight-jacket that limits their possible actions for the protection of the minority.

in a democracy aren't all voices (votes) equal?

if i have more money and power than you, at the ballot it doesn't matter, you and your weaker friends can overrule me no matter how much money i had

pessimizer3y ago

If I have more money and power than you, your weaker friends will do what I say or starve, but that's beside the point.

The point is that if your country is 51% Catholic and votes to exterminate the 49% of Protestants, that's democracy.

andrekandre3y ago

  > The point is that if your country is 51% Catholic and votes to exterminate the 49% of Protestants, that's democracy.

has that ever happened in a democracy where everyone had an equal vote and that vote was by everyone who could do so?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse