Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
I believe that in a democracy majority rule is indeed the superlative political determinant subject only to the reasonable expectation of a minority to not be unreasonably interfered with in their liberties that are not socially maladaptive or unreasonable to accomodate.
i.e. I would not support government mandated "whites only" lunch counters even if more than 50% of the population supported it because that would be an unreasonable infringement on minority rights of freedom of association, and there is no inherently unreasonable cost for the government to support that minority right.
On the other hand, there are all sorts of impositions on minorities that are supportable. The imposition of taxes on everyone, despite the loud objections of a small minority against any taxation is a perfect example. Social utility supports the government collecting taxes to benefit everyone even if a minority feels this to be an unfair imposition on their liberty. Fluoridation is a similar situation in my opinion. There are arguments for and against, but ultimately it is incumbent upon the minority to shift public attitude, not for the majority to give up the benefits they have become accustomed to based on a minority's lobbying ability.
I sent an email to my alderman in this regard this morning.
|
In your post, you were arguing for something implicit; your argument wasn't merely supportive of a majority rule: especially the bolded part. The reason I was able to deduce this implication is simply that you admit a criteria existing ulterior to majority rule, to which majority rule is subservient. Majority rule fails to be sovereign according to this understanding, and I would argue it's subservience be dictated by the concept of liberalism.
The tenets of liberalism are the superlative political determinant, of which majority rule is merely a single mechanism. However, majority rule, unchecked, has an stagnant effect on society. You introduced the notion of "rights", and within your context seems to be the underlying notion of dignity. This notion of dignity is essential for the inclusion of minorities, which we often consider to be a fundamental and demonstrable "good" in that it engages and propagates a dialectical process.
In our social conscience exists all of this, and more, reified as liberalism. It is to what we aim our social and political goals. Majority rule is nothing more than a mechanism (albeit an flawed one) that helps us attain our goals.
And kudos to you for writing your alderman! I can always appreciate civil engagement.