Great post, but it's a hard read. I haven't finished it yet; parsing old English is hard, and I'm at work right now.
A bit that stick out to me -
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.
I rather dislike rule of the majority, and I'm rather glad at least some actions (like amendments to the federal constitution), requires a higher degree of agreement. But I wonder if even that (2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures) is too low a standard. For a while now I have been wondering if having some immutable laws - laws and rights that cannot be removed or restricted by any vote - would be superior to having everything being potentially mutable. But then you run into the issue of having to update the structure in the future, in ways that we cannot yet see or envision.
There's always that balancing act, between the structures built in the past that we use as our basis and grounding, and the updating of that structure to deal with the issues of the present. I think making certain law completely immutable might be going too far, but I wonder if making certain changes or alterations impossible, and allowing others on the basis of an overwhelming majority vote (perhaps as high as 90%), would be a potential way to go.
I may post more later on.
Great post, but it's a hard read. I haven't finished it yet; parsing old English is hard, and I'm at work right now.
A bit that stick out to me -
> After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.
I rather dislike rule of the majority, and I'm rather glad at least some actions (like amendments to the federal constitution), requires a higher degree of agreement. But I wonder if even that (2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures) is too low a standard. For a while now I have been wondering if having some immutable laws - laws and rights that cannot be removed or restricted by any vote - would be superior to having everything being potentially mutable. But then you run into the issue of having to update the structure in the future, in ways that we cannot yet see or envision.
There's always that balancing act, between the structures built in the past that we use as our basis and grounding, and the updating of that structure to deal with the issues of the present. I think making certain law completely immutable might be going too far, but I wonder if making certain changes or alterations impossible, and allowing others on the basis of an overwhelming majority vote (perhaps as high as 90%), would be a potential way to go.
I may post more later on.
This subverse is primarily intended to talk about Libertarian philosophy, values, and ideas. We are not affiliated with the Libertarian Party in any way. All viewpoints and discussion is welcome, as long as it's cordial.
Great post, but it's a hard read. I haven't finished it yet; parsing old English is hard, and I'm at work right now.
A bit that stick out to me -
I rather dislike rule of the majority, and I'm rather glad at least some actions (like amendments to the federal constitution), requires a higher degree of agreement. But I wonder if even that (2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures) is too low a standard. For a while now I have been wondering if having some immutable laws - laws and rights that cannot be removed or restricted by any vote - would be superior to having everything being potentially mutable. But then you run into the issue of having to update the structure in the future, in ways that we cannot yet see or envision.
There's always that balancing act, between the structures built in the past that we use as our basis and grounding, and the updating of that structure to deal with the issues of the present. I think making certain law completely immutable might be going too far, but I wonder if making certain changes or alterations impossible, and allowing others on the basis of an overwhelming majority vote (perhaps as high as 90%), would be a potential way to go.
I may post more later on.