NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't help noticing that in Britain especially quite often the public want one thing while Parliament has generally for the good of the country done something different.

Some good examples would be. Public support generally high for the death penalty the last 30 years while parliament always being strongly against. The NHS, Gay rights and generally a fair few things going against what the majority of people at the time wanted.

My question is, surely we can agree that progressing civil liberties and welfare to those need (trying to decrease poverty) are all good things however when would you feel its fine for governments to do this.

Some would argue allowing abortion is wrong and if the majority of people are against abortion is the government allowed to be pro choice. Likewise are liberal policies on drugs, or to offer the other side un liberal policies on torture/dealing with terrorism acceptable against the public will. Since its clear some of the best advancements socially have been made against the public will by parliament.

I can sum up my entire argument in the following sentence:

The rights of a minority should always come above the wishes of the majority.

I can sum up my entire argument in the following sentence:

The rights of a minority should always come above the wishes of the majority.
I will expand that statement. Why should liberty be restricted simply because the majority wills it?

The answer to this question was made immortal by thomas jefferson:

"unalienable rights."

^^^^^
What rights are inalienable?

I will expand that statement. Why should liberty be restricted simply because the majority wills it?
Liberty should be restricted if it affects the majority in a way they don't want it to. If it has no effect, there's no reason to restrict it.

^^^^^
What rights are inalienable?


Liberty should be restricted if it affects the majority in a way they don't want it to. If it has no effect, there's no reason to restrict it.
Boo-hoo, it sets a precendent for further interuption in peoples' lives.

Liberty should be restricted if it affects the majority in a way they don't want it to. If it has no effect, there's no reason to restrict it.
No, because then we would probably still have slavery.

"By banning slavery you're removing my right to own slaves"

It doesn't work like that. The second what the majority wants tries to overrun the rights of a minority, what the majority wants becomes irrelevent, and what the minorities rights are become everything.

I can't help noticing that in Britain especially quite often the public want one thing while Parliament has generally for the good of the country done something different.
If your government is doing so many things you don't like, then vote them out of office.

If your government is doing so many things you don't like, then vote them out of office.
Funny story...they only got voted in a few months ago.

No, because then we would probably still have slavery.

"By banning slavery you're removing my right to own slaves"

It doesn't work like that. The second what the majority wants tries to overrun the rights of a minority, what the majority wants becomes irrelevent, and what the minorities rights are become everything.
Good point, I didn't think of the slavery issue. But what rights do minorities have? Where shall the line be drawn and where does it come from?

It all depends on how you view government. If it isn't based on the democracy then government can overrule the majority whenever they want.

If it is democratic then if depends if the democratic representatives are supposed to represent people's wishes or interests. If it's wishes then never. If it's interests then it depends of course.

I can sum up my entire argument in the following sentence:

The rights of a minority should always come above the wishes of the majority.Ah, but what are rights? In the UK parliment is supreme. If they decided that is was the right of everyone to own a computer then it would be. If they decided that their citizens didn't have the right to own property the it would be so.

When should the wishes of the many overide the wishes of the few? In Athenian democracy then all the time. Cup of hemlock anyone?

If you live in a consitutional democracy then the consititution is supreme. Then the the wishes of the many can never override what is written in the constitution - whatever it may say.

But what rights do minorities have?
The same rights everybody else has.

Ah, but what are rights? In the UK parliment is supreme. If they decided that is was the right of everyone to own a computer then it would be. If they decided that their citizens didn't have the right to own property the it would be so.
The Human Rights Act and the Lords (especially the Law Lords) are usually enough to safeguard rights.

Good point, I didn't think of the slavery issue. But what rights do minorities have? Where shall the line be drawn and where does it come from?
Funnily enough some people think slavery is a good idea. And I'm feeling sympathetic at the moment. Some people are idiots. And will do whatever someone else tells them - aristotle's natural slaves NB Aristotle did not believe that people should be bought into slavery if they were conquered by another.

Just looking at modern capitalist society. It makes you think. Are we not slaves already, just that we aren't aware of it? We have our preferences subtley shaped by various groups. We have to have the latest fashion accessory. WE have to be cool. And those corparate bigwigs tell us what's cool.

We have to have the latest fashion accessory. WE have to be cool. And those corparate bigwigs tell us what's cool.
No. Some people decide they have to have the latest fashion accessory etc. Many, many people are perfectly fine without it.

The Human Rights Act and the Lords (especially the Law Lords) are usually enough to safeguard rights.Not at all. Howard wanted to repeal the human rights act if I can remember correctly and the Act of Parliment bypasses the lords. The Law Lords can only tell the government if there are contradictions to previous laws or treaties in which we part of. In which case the government can withdraw from the treaty or repeal the other law.

Definition of the rights that Every Human Being is entitled, merely by their existance in western culture to.

1. Life
2. Freedom of Speech and Assembly for non-violent purposes
3. Protection against lawless violence
4. Protection against repression of religion, speech, thought, or non-violent or un-lawful/ethical act.
5. Protection of private property rights and a stable economic foundation in which to prosper. (hey, we are capitalists after all.)

No. Some people decide they have to have the latest fashion accessory etc. Many, many people are perfectly fine without it.That doesn't negate my point. Some people are natural slaves, some people are natural masters. Some people are meant to be lead, some people are meant to lead. And I think you underestimate the power of marketing, in all its forms not just simply bold advertising. Think the 'nagging effect' that companies use to compel some parents to buy their children certain things. Think of the tactics used in Jennifer Government. Think Loyalty cards and loyalty points. Think strategic placing of goods in a supermarket. Think of 2 for 1 deals on specifc products.

Not at all. Howard wanted to repeal the human rights act if I can remember correctly and the Act of Parliment bypasses the lords. The Law Lords can only tell the government if there are contradictions to previous laws or treaties in which we part of. In which case the government can withdraw from the treaty or repeal the other law.

yes, but it's a lot harder, often times to get people to embark upon a long, protracted legal battle over some issue, getting a motion passed and enacted, then repealing another, older precendent than to just get something passed with no motion blocking it in the first place.

Granted, abberations to this process do occur, but that's how reform (for better or worse) takes place

That doesn't negate my point. Some people are natural slaves, some people are natural masters. Some people are meant to be lead, some people are meant to lead. And I think you underestimate the power of marketing, in all its forms not just simply bold advertising. Think the 'nagging effect' that companies use to compel some parents to buy their children certain things. Think of the tactics used in Jennifer Government. Think Loyalty cards and loyalty points. Think strategic placing of goods in a supermarket. Think of 2 for 1 deals on specifc products.

You just gave a text-book definition of enterprising entertainment/advertizing entrepreneurship in a capitalist society. It's worked so far.

Not at all. Howard wanted to repeal the human rights act if I can remember correctly and the Act of Parliment bypasses the lords. The Law Lords can only tell the government if there are contradictions to previous laws or treaties in which we part of. In which case the government can withdraw from the treaty or repeal the other law.
Howard wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act and look where that got him.

The Law Lords have done exactly what I said they do; the help protect our rights. They chucked out the governments old anti-terrorism legislation because it violated a couple of laws.

We also have the European Court of Human Rights which can expell people from the Council of Europe. Once expelled from the Council of Europe, it's only a short journey to being out of the EU and on your way to being screwed over.

And, of course, the Queen can refuse to give assent to any law grossly violating the basic rights of the people.

There's absolutely no doubt that if Parliament wanted it could do alot of things, but I don't imagine it actually would, and there are enough barriers to make it very unlikely.

Definition of the rights that Every Human Being is entitled, merely by their existance in western culture to.

1. Life
2. Freedom of Speech and Assembly for non-violent purposes
3. Protection against lawless violence
4. Protection against repression of religion, speech, thought, or non-violent or un-lawful/ethical act.
5. Protection of private property rights and a stable economic foundation in which to prosper. (hey, we are capitalists after all.)1) The US still has the death penalty.
2) I seem to remember American police violent breaking up peaceful anti-war rallies before the Iraq war. The curfews imposed in french cities in the past month.
3) What's lawless? What's lawful? Easily changed.
4) The UK recently threatened two newspapers with the official secrets act if they published certain ideas. Censorship is still happening. I can't advocate terrorism or glorify it anymore since it's now illegal.
5) Hey, I can't own slaves anymore.

I would have thought the right to drinking water and air were much more easier ones to go for. I can walk into any establishment and ask for tap water they have can't refuse. If I don't pay my water bills then the water company can't get off my water.

That doesn't negate my point. Some people are natural slaves, some people are natural masters. Some people are meant to be lead, some people are meant to lead. And I think you underestimate the power of marketing, in all its forms not just simply bold advertising. Think the 'nagging effect' that companies use to compel some parents to buy their children certain things. Think of the tactics used in Jennifer Government. Think Loyalty cards and loyalty points. Think strategic placing of goods in a supermarket. Think of 2 for 1 deals on specifc products.
And what possible justification can this possibly be for the removal of the fundamental rights of a human being?

I will expand that statement. Why should liberty be restricted simply because the majority wills it?
I will further expand that:
Why should liberty be restricted, period?

Funny story...they only got voted in a few months ago.
Only because we vote in such a way that 36% = a majority!

Howard wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act and look where that got him.

The Law Lords have done exactly what I said they do; the help protect our rights. They chucked out the governments old anti-terrorism legislation because it violated a couple of laws.

We also have the European Court of Human Rights which can expell people from the Council of Europe. Once expelled from the Council of Europe, it's only a short journey to being out of the EU and on your way to being screwed over.

And, of course, the Queen can refuse to give assent to any law grossly violating the basic rights of the people.

There's absolutely no doubt that if Parliament wanted it could do alot of things, but I don't imagine it actually would, and there are enough barriers to make it very unlikely.There were more things that got Howard out on his ass than just that.
The Law Lords objection was it contravened the European convention of human rights. Not any British law as I remember.
No monarch has refused to sign an act of Parliment for about 300 years.

But yeah, I'm just trying to challenge preconceptions, play devils adovocate. It's a game I enjoy as it's normally much more challenging than arguing the traditional cultural norms ingrained into us.

And to Merki - Capitalism may have worked so far but it's certainly given us some pretty shitty economic slumps along the way.

Back to Nadkor - There's nothing fundamental about fundamental human rights. We have the right to nothing when it all comes down to it. But we form flimsy social constructs that 'guarentee' us certain rights. But under the right circumstances these 'fundamental rights' do, and have, disapeared easily. They only exist to help smooth the existance of society. Did you know we award rights to something that doesn't exist par se. We allow an economic contrust to have property rights and responsibility for its actions.

If someone acts as if they have no rational mind of their own then surely giving them certain rights is useless or even counter productive as they can be manipulated easily and their rights abused to the advantage of another.

To Superpower - what's liberty precisely? Am I at liberty to give you a slap? Governments seem to be quite keen on restricting the liberty of companies to prevent them from taking certain actions.

Edit: And with that I need sleep. I'll catch up with this thread tomorrow.

Good point, I didn't think of the slavery issue. But what rights do minorities have? Where shall the line be drawn and where does it come from?


Bad phrasing. Neither majorities nor minorities deserve rights. No group should have rights. Only the individual should have rights. The government should override the majority whenever the wishes of the majority interfere with the rights of the individual. Thats the line, its uncomfortable, but it is both simple and the best way to hold tyranny at bay.

Definition of the rights that Every Human Being is entitled, merely by their existance in western culture to.

1. Life
2. Freedom of Speech and Assembly for non-violent purposes
3. Protection against lawless violence
4. Protection against repression of religion, speech, thought, or non-violent or un-lawful/ethical act.
5. Protection of private property rights and a stable economic foundation in which to prosper. (hey, we are capitalists after all.)

Umm...actually, you're a little off on #2. Nonviolence is not a prerequisite for free speech and assembly. Heres an example. Lets say a group of students in a country like Iran get together and begin advocating a violent revolution. Their government comes in and silences them. Would that be a violation of human rights or do the people have the right to kill tyrants and incite violence in order to bring about that death?

2) I seem to remember American police violent breaking up peaceful anti-war rallies before the Iraq war.

A little off-topic, but...I live in one of those cities (Chicago) and thats not exactly an accurate assessment of what happened. Police broke up rallies when they went off their routes and began to screw with traffic in a very congested area of the city. In fact, the protesters here decided to jump barricades and march on a highway. At that point, it becomes a public saftey issue (and putting people on a busy expressway isn't exactly nonviolent). When the shit really hit the fan was when all the rich little suburban students forgot where they were and decided to get physical with the police. Thats a bad idea in Chicago, really bad.

I will further expand that:
Why should liberty be restricted, period?

When an action creates a real and substanative restriction on the liberty of another. Thats the only time. And no, being offended doesn't count. In a free society you need a thick skin.

The government should override the majority whenever the wishes of the majority interfere with the rights of the individual. Thats the line, its uncomfortable, but it is both simple and the best way to hold tyranny at bay. .

Back to my first post, but surely this would imply all drugs should be legal. And the government would have no right to hold suspected terrorists even for 1/2 days (as it takes that individuals rights) let alone 14 or 28.


When an action creates a real and substanative restriction on the liberty of another. Thats the only time. And no, being offended doesn't count. In a free society you need a thick skin .

Being offended is one thing but this can lead to society taking away liberties. I would be sure that if 2 people applied for a job one muslim/woman/gay ect.. they are often less likely to get it since society has a negative view of them. Thick skin is one thing but its rarely just an offensive comment thats made, its a societys point of view thats reflected in offensive comments.

Government is not about giving what the people want, it is about giving the people what they need. Democracy tries to make them reconcile the two.

I find this interesting because it brings into question what precisely democracy is. The British model has simply been majority rule, also called parliamentary sovereignty. Basically we don't have a constitution and parliament makes laws and that's the end of it. But these days it's being eroded. A bunch of judges in European courts can now snap their fingers and tell us how to run our country.

Now I know a lot of Americans are going to come quote us Thomas Jefferson until they're blue in the face, but Britain is a different country. I don't want a situation like in America where the decisions of elected representatives are suddenly deemed irrelevant on the say so a handful of unelected judges. There was a case recently when a muslim girl wanted to wear her ridiculous clothes despite the school's uniform policy. A load of judges had the opinion that that was bad so they overruled it. I think that is far too much power being placed in the hands of unelected officials. It's also exacerbated the victim culture in our society. Can't get everything your own way in life? Whine to the courts and they're sure to force the majority to bend over backwards to accomodate you!

I will expand that statement. Why should liberty be restricted simply because the majority wills it?
Because you can't make EVERYBODY happy. So you please as many people as you can. That's why the US presidential nominee with the most electoral votes gets the oval office. Not the little independant guy running in one state with no votes at all.

Public support generally high for the death penalty the last 30 years while parliament always being strongly against.
The death penalty hasn't actually not been reintroduced for the good of the people, it's more that no government since it was abolished wanted to go down in history as being the ones who brought it back.

Originally Posted by Jurgencube
Public support generally high for the death penalty the last 30 years while parliament always being strongly against.

Also, this smacks of the rule of Daily Mail.
Democracy isn't Demagogy. I keep hearing about how the majority support the death penalty, but I keep hearing it from the right wing press.

Back to my first post, but surely this would imply all drugs should be legal. And the government would have no right to hold suspected terrorists even for 1/2 days (as it takes that individuals rights) let alone 14 or 28.

Why, yes, I do believe drugs should be legal, mainly because I don't see how the government can justify moralistic intervention and criminilization of consensual activity. Me, I'm not a big fan of drugs, but I am not comfortable with giving the government the power to ban them. It puts the government too deeply into my life.

As for terrorists, theres this little hitch, its called habeas corpus. So no, I don't think the government should be able to hold ANYONE for longer than 72 hours without a charge being filed. At least, not domestically. On the battle field, during a declared war, the rules are different. The Geneva conventions should still apply and be followed as much as can be expected (if for no other reason than to prove we are better than those we battle). If a few bullets end up in a few skulls during a war, well...thems th' breaks.

Being offended is one thing but this can lead to society taking away liberties. I would be sure that if 2 people applied for a job one muslim/woman/gay ect.. they are often less likely to get it since society has a negative view of them. Thick skin is one thing but its rarely just an offensive comment thats made, its a societys point of view thats reflected in offensive comments.

Logic like that is why I fly the Gadsden flag.

So you ban the comments? If no one says it then no one thinks it? What next, are you going to try to ban speech in private? I've got news for you, most racist thinking does not come from reading Mein Kampf, it is learned early in the home. Even if you were to somehow manage to stop all racially offensive speech, there is still the problem of implicit attitudes and subtle racism, which are even worse because people tend not to notice them. Banning speech just violates liberty without actually doing anything. Its an action that makes us feel like were doing something, but it has no real effect. In fact, its detrimental because it is likely to shore up racist idiology ("look at what those people have done, I can't even speak my mind").

There is also the problem of deciding where the line is drawn. Do we protect women, gays, races, ethnic backgrounds, religions, what? How far do we protect them? Define hate. Better yet, explain to me the difference between satire and hate speech. Show me a definition that would protect public discourse and only criminalize hate speech. Show me a definition that would allow criticism of radical islamist policies, or of church doctrine I find unpalatable. You can't. Once you begin down that road, there is no such thing as freedom of speech, or freedom of conscience. Thats statism, thats tyranny. No thanks.

I will expand that statement. Why should liberty be restricted simply because the majority wills it?

Because it is the majority who are most affected by it. Hence if they dont like it, its their own fault and it is then rectified by an even larger majority. Containing not only the original majority who now dont like it, but the minority who orignally didnt too.