slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Just wanted to say congrats to all the homosexual members whose marriages can now be respected for what they are!
Just wanted to say congrats to all the homosexual members whose marriages can now be respected for what they are!
Off-topic but I do agree. Prop 8 was obviously in conflict with the language of the California constitution.
Was it a constitutional change or simply a law? I was under the impression it was an amendment to their constitution.
Off-topic but I do agree. Prop 8 was obviously in conflict with the language of the California constitution.
It is also a great example of how sometimes the majority is just plain wrong and rights need to be protected over what democratic mob wants. Something I like to bring up to 'democrats' or 'republicans' who cry for things to be done by popular vote. There is tyranny in mob rule.
It is also a great example of how sometimes the majority is just plain wrong and rights need to be protected over what democratic mob wants. Something I like to bring up to 'democrats' or 'republicans' who cry for things to be done by popular vote. There is tyranny in mob rule.
Social Lounge.
There is the same tyranny in the rule of the majority, the "tyranny of the majority." This mention, here, is not the first realization of the tyranny of the majority.There is tyranny in mob rule.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=athenian+randomness+democracy 4,230,000 hits Maybe one will interrupt your dream fantasy."Tyranny of the Majority" is really a false term.
Was opening this can of worms really necessary?
Was opening this can of worms really necessary?
I have mixed feelings about this. I understand Jefferson's viewpoint that a pure republic ought to be as direct a democracy as possible, but I also understand the failings of groupthink.
Too tired to add more now.
Hmm, I thought topics were still supposed to be somewhat related to guns, but I guess that is no longer (or never actually was) the case.
Carry on.
"Tyranny of the Majority" is really a false term. The "majority" is generally lead by a tiny, VERY LOUD and VERY VISIBLE minority, like sheep being herded by a collie.
So even "tyranny of the majority" in a "democratic" referendum vote is actually STILL a tiny minority exerting their power over the majority.
"Rule", in ANY application, ALWAYS comes down to a tiny minority exerting power over others. It's just that some versions of "rulership" have the subtle veneer of "popular choice" or "mob rule", because TPTB know if they give us the APPEARANCE of participating in our own serfdom, we won't start gathering pitchforks, torches and pots full of tar...
Contract law is NOT a "sacrament", and excluding ANY person of sound mind and body from engaging in ANY form of contractual agreement is a slippery slope. It didn't work in Germany in the 30's and 40s, and putting limitations on the eligibility to engage in entering into contracts on people because of race, religion, or lifestyle today is no less egregious a violation of fundamental human rights...
...to a liberal court actually ruling in a Constitutional manner?
There are benefits to democratic aspect Jefferson promoted especially locally. But there should be a basis of fundamental human rights that trump what the "majority" want.
Only because of who was being offended.