When Good Trumps Right

coberst

Critical Thinker
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
415
When Good Trumps Right

America politicians are the best experts available for evaluating the judgmental ability of American citizens. Watching election campaigns offer us an opportunity to quickly gauge the level of intellectual sophistication of US citizens as judged by politicians; the politicians’ expertise in all such matters determines their success or failure as a politician.

The father looking over the shoulder of his daughter working on her homework says. “Perhaps I can help”. She says “I’m looking for the lowest common denominator”. He, looking rather shocked, replied “Whoo! Are they still looking for that?”

Is democracy merely the process of seeking the lowest common denominator?

The two primary concepts of ethics are right and good. In the United States we give priority to right by ensconcing detailed rights in the Constitution. Good can be freely determined by each individual as long as our good does not trounce another’s rights.

Our government, like Lincoln’s government in the Civil War and FDR’s government in WWII, has decided to reprioritize our Constitutional rights in favor of the good that our government has determined to be in synchronization with the will of the majority.

The majority seems to, in periods of great stress, give priority to the good instead of the right that was determined in ‘cold blood’. I consider such action to be a weakness of democracy. What do you think about it?
 
Is democracy merely the process of seeking the lowest common denominator?

That's why an unrestricted democracy is not the ideal situation. The democracy implements a constitutionally limited republic, wherein the government is granted certain powers (not rights), and no more.

In this manner, the "blowing winds" of the latest populist cannot implement radical changes just because they can briefly convince 51% of the population to follow some crazy idea.

Quite frankly, I'd make normal law passing require a supermajority, not just constitutional changes. If you can't get most of the people (not just half) to agree something should be a law, then it probably shouldn't be.
 
That's why an unrestricted democracy is not the ideal situation. The democracy implements a constitutionally limited republic, wherein the government is granted certain powers (not rights), and no more.

In this manner, the "blowing winds" of the latest populist cannot implement radical changes just because they can briefly convince 51% of the population to follow some crazy idea.

Quite frankly, I'd make normal law passing require a supermajority, not just constitutional changes. If you can't get most of the people (not just half) to agree something should be a law, then it probably shouldn't be.


So instead of a majority control you prefer a minority control.
 
So instead of a majority control you prefer a minority control.


Dear coberst,

The levers of power are always available for the masses to take hold of; the safeguards are there to ensure they only do so when they're clear-headed and serious about it.

Cpl Ferro
 

Back
Top Bottom