News browsing

[tinyjo]

This, about the Sexual Orientation Regulations, made me really sad. All the examples the opponents of the bill gave, like hoteliers liable to prosecution for refusing a double room to a gay couple, were things that I thought "But that's what I would want to happen!". I think I may be a lefty pinko liberal.

On the other hand, this, about a new random radio station launching in Oxford, sounds quite interesting

Comments

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's a solution that works better on a minority prejudice, I think because then you can generate activism in the majority population who disapprove hopefully allowing attitude changes to be pushed by social pressure.

In the case of majority prejudices, it's much less workable. It also puts one in a tricky position democratically - should a government legislate against a majority opinion? You can (and I would) argue that they still have an obligation to govern for all of the electorate so in the case of things like discrimination then yes, but it's definitely something you have to be careful with.

[applez.livejournal.com]

should a government legislate against a majority opinion?

"We are (all) only doing as well as the least of us."

[leora.livejournal.com]

The US is not a democracy. The founding fathers considered and rejected a democracy, because democracy allows for "the tyranny of the majority". The idea behind the US was that everyone should be equal under the law, and that the majority should not be able to change that. Thus a Constitution of protections that are difficult to change and protect minorities.

I personally prefer this system to a democracy. Yes, those protections can be whittled away, and the founding fathers were worried about that. But if you can keep a system of protections in place that allow for reasonable levels of freedom and fairness, then I think it's a better system than just the majority getting whatever it wants.