The point, such as it is, was that if one advocates democratic rule because they consider it a moral 'good', then there's a conflict when that democracy results in something which they consider a moral 'bad'. Unless, of course, a person has no moral goods other than promoting democracy. — Isaac

That's true. To be truly devoted to democracy means you can allow the people to make mistakes (Donald Trump). You don't abandon the system just because it handed you a defeat, or because someone managed to subvert it.

There's a certain amount of faith in people involved.

To be truly devoted to democracy means you can allow the people to make mistakes (Donald Trump). — frank

So why (the devotion)? That's the question I was asking. Or, to put it another way...

You don't abandon the system just because it handed you a defeat, or because someone managed to subvert it. — frank

Why not?

You don't abandon the system just because it handed you a defeat — frank

The reintroduction of slavery wouldn't just be a "defeat". Politics isn't just some game where the only thing that matters is one's team "winning" for the sake of being the winner.

Politics isn't some game of sports where the only thing that matter is one's team "winning" for the sake of being the winner. — Michael

Exactly. We have a set of goals, only one of which is giving people a say in how their communities are run.

So why (the devotion)? — Isaac

Numerous reasons. That's a historical, cultural, and psychological question. If your point is that it's flawed, sure I agree with that.

Numerous reasons. That's a historical, cultural, and psychological question. — frank

Again...

To be clear -

How and why things are the way they are: A matter for experts - if I want to know I'll read a book.

What people think about how things ought to be: Not a matter for experts, if I want to know I have to just ask people. — Isaac

I'm asking you what your reasons are (if you have any). I'm not asking for a brief history of American culture, I have a library for that job.

Oh.

1. Probably most fundamentally, democracy fosters a mindset of ownership of the challenges faced by my society. This is our world. We have the ability to shape it according to our vision of what it should be. IOW, democracy inclines us toward the truth.

I believe every society actually is of the people. This fact is just highlighted in a democratic government.

2. It's related to my ideas about how people grow and develop. Freedom to decide is a hallmark of adulthood. A monarchy stalls the development of wisdom in a society by rendering everyone childlike.

I could go on, but I'm not going to if you're just exercising your conflict habituation. We'll see. :confused:

OK, thanks.

If I were responsible (evil meddling psychologist that I am) for creating a platoon of ruthless assassins by behavioural programming, Jason Bourne style, do you think I'd have some responsibility for the actions of the resulting unit, and how ought I exercise that responsibility?

If I were responsible (evil meddling psychologist that I am) for creating a platoon of ruthless assassins by behavioural programming, Jason Bourne style, do you think I'd have some responsibility for the actions of the resulting unit, and how ought I exercise that responsibility? — Isaac

Could you make this question a little more explicit?

Could you make this question a little more explicit? — frank

Sure. Do you think that we have responsibility for our effects on the personality and beliefs of others? (Or alternatively, I suppose, are you of the view that no such effect is possible?)

If the answer is yes, how do you think we should exercise that responsibility?

Say, if I, through my God awful parenting, produced an absolute monster, do I just let them loose on society at 18 and wash my hands of them (respect their "Freedom to decide" as you put it)? Or do I have some responsibility to act as some restrainer of their excess?

Sure. Do you think that we have responsibility for our effects on the personality and beliefs of others? — Isaac

If you discover that you were born with a genius for manipulating people, I advise that you don't use it at all because if you think you have the wisdom to use it, you are almost certainly wrong. (Although if you find that you've been accidentally using it to calm people down in a healthcare environment, go with it.)

Say, if I, through my God awful parenting, produced an absolute monster, do I just let them loose on society at 18 and wash my hands of them (respect their "Freedom to decide" as you put it)? Or do I have some responsibility to act as some restrainer of their excess? — Isaac

If you're American, you're probably on your own with this. You can contact the police, but they'll probably ignore you. How does it work where you're from?

If you discover that you were born with a genius for manipulating people, I advise that you don't use it at all because if you think you have the wisdom to use it, you are almost certainly wrong. — frank

I was more thinking of the ordinary, everyday influence, just trying to come at it using an extreme example. Parents influence the kinds of people their children grow up to be. Popular cultural movements influence the kinds of people teenagers become... That sort of thing.

If you agree such influence exists, then there might be some responsibility on one generation to guard against the moral failure of the succeeding generations on the off chance they may have themselves failed to raise the sort of people they'd hoped to raise.

In a sense, that's the moral ground in which I think anti-democratic, but moral, legislation might stand.

@frank

Democracy doesn't unequivocally equal majority rule. E.g. Northern Ireland is a democracy, but the majority (as in majority community) is specifically forbidden to rule. Power sharing is enforced. When you have a state that's significantly split, subverting majority rule may in fact be necessary for democracy (as in representative rule) to function.

"Properly understood, democracy should not even be "rule of the majority", if that means that minorities' interests are ignored completely. A democracy, at least in theory, is government on behalf of all the people, according to their "will"."

https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy

For the people, of the people, not for the majority, of the majority, which is more like majoritarianism.

"Majoritarianism is often referred to as majority rule, which may refer to a majority class ruling over a minority class, while not referring to the decision process called majority rule. It is a belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism#:~:text=Majoritarianism%20is%20a%20traditional%20political,decisions%20that%20affect%20the%20society.

Having said that, @Michael has some work to do to demonstrate restrictions on abortion constitute repression of a minority. It probably depends on the strictness of the restrictions, and the other side will counter-claim that abortion is repression of the unborn.

relying on memory — 180 Proof

Noooooooooo! :scream:

Democracy doesn't unequivocally equal majority rule. — Baden

I said:

In a democracy, the majority (with temperance provided by various mechanisms) rules. — frank

I think that's about right.

In a sense, that's the moral ground in which I think anti-democratic, but moral, legislation might stand. — Isaac

Ok. Autocracy usually arises due to crisis. We instinctively know that during a crisis we're better off with a leader who can make quick decisions, whether they're right or wrong.

True. I was more thinking of the role of things like constitutions and the Declaration of Human Rights than autocrats though. In my mind, their moral standing is essentially "yes, we believe in autonomy and good people should make good choices, but...in case we fuck the next generation up so much that they don't, here's all the best bits of what we've worked out, committed to immutable law".

It's insurance in case the next generation turn out to be monsters.

That's what Roe was. Insurance against the possibility that future generations saw fit to deny those rights - not by virtue of them merely disagreeing (that would be opposed to ordinary respect for autonomy), but by virtue of the previous generation having failed to bring them up to be sufficiently moral human beings to have their preferences respected.

That's what Roe was. Insurance against the possibility that future generations saw fit to deny those rights - not by virtue of them merely disagreeing (that would be opposed to ordinary respect for autonomy), but by virtue of the previous generation having failed to bring them up to be sufficiently moral human beings to have their preferences respected. — Isaac

This is incorrect. Laws and constitutional amendments are the mechanisms for cementing the will of the people.

Roe comes from an era when it was thought that judges should take it upon themselves to make social changes that havent been arrived at democratically. Times have changed.

Laws and constitutional amendments are the mechanisms for cementing the will of the people.

Roe comes from an era when it was thought that judges should take it upon themselves to make social changes that havent been arrived at democratically. Times have changed. — frank

Ah, again, you're mistaking me for someone in search of a history lesson. I had thought I'd made the distinction quite clear, but evidently still not clear enough. I'll try again.

If I wanted to understand either the historical or legal facts about the case, I would seek out the opinion of an expert. There are countless books and journals on the subject, its a matter of supreme ease to find a wealth of such information just from my armchair, let alone a short trip to the university library.

What I'm enquiring about here is how (if we agree with the process) we might morally justify it.

What I'm enquiring about here is how (if we agree with the process) we might morally justify it. — Isaac

I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know what you're talking about. — frank

Are you having trouble with the difference between how things are and how things ought to be?

If the people judge that murder is taking place in private, then it's most definitely a governmental issue. — frank

Your statement seems more like a play on words than a serious objection.

Is a fertilized egg, a non-viable fetus, or a near term fetus, a person? Thereby hangs the tale.

Defining a fertilized egg or a non-viable / viable fetus as a person seems to be first a religious definition (based on the idea of 'ensoulment') that has been taken up by religious-minded secular legislators.

Religious definitions (God, sin, sanctification ensoulment -- personhood--transubstantiation, virgin birth, etc.) should not be enshrined in civil law for two reasons: the citizenry is diverse and holds diverse religious positions (or no religious positions at all); and whether to hold any or no religious view is a private matter. How to care for one's health and whether to bear children or not, are also private matters.

The anti-abortion/anti-birth control policy is often judged to be part of patriarchal control of women. Most paleo-conservatives and troglodytes are sophisticated enough that they won't profess this view openly, but the intent seems obvious enough a good share of the time.

The right to privacy is the basis of court judgements In other areas as well. For example, the court has held that two men having sex in a bedroom have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Lower courts had earlier held that two men having sex in a video stall of an adult bookstore (not on a park bench) had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the police were not justified in busting the door down to arrest them.

Your statement seems more like a play on words than a serious objection.

Is a fertilized egg, a non-viable fetus, or a near term fetus, a person? Thereby hangs the tale. — Bitter Crank

I would say no. Plenty say it is. When people have a difference of opinion about whether an action is moral, that makes it a public issue.

I've never agreed that abortion is about a woman's right to choose. It's about whether abortion is moral. If you think it is, say so, and elect people who will provide protection through laws.

Defining a fertilized egg or a non-viable / viable fetus as a person seems to be first a religious definition (based on the idea of 'ensoulment') that has been taken up by religious-minded secular legislators. — Bitter Crank

Yes. A lot of Americans are religious. So what?

Laws and constitutional amendments are the mechanisms for cementing the will of the people.

Roe comes from an era when it was thought that judges should take it upon themselves to make social changes that havent been arrived at democratically. Times have changed. — frank

The CITIZENS UNITED decision was handed down in 2010. Apparently times haven't changed.

Laws and constitutional amendments may very well be a concretization of the people's will, or not.

The 18th Amendment concretized SOME peoples' will to ban liquor -- rural Protestant voters in particular. At that time, rural voters had an outsized level of representation -- corrected later in "one man one vote" decision (Reynolds v. Sims 1964) which stated that congressional districts had to have equal population. It was clear throughout Prohibition that the majority of the people (urban dwellers in particular, and Catholics) did not support prohibition of alcohol.

There is no state in the US where overturning Roe has more than 30% support so everything Frank has said over the last two pages is just muck.

And to assert that Americans have a commitment to democracy is laughable trash. Americans have a commitment to being selfish pieces of shit regardless of what the demos might say.

:up:

The 18th Amendment concretized SOME peoples' will to ban liquor — Bitter Crank

Some historian I read said that Prohibition was really about the fact that bars were often the meeting places for organizing labor.

Laws and constitutional amendments are the mechanisms for cementing the will of the people. — frank

It must be the will of the people to live in an oligarchy peopled preponderantly by Morlocks and their masters.

elect people who will provide protection through laws. — frank

Yes, absolutely.

A lot of Americans are religious. So what — frank

They aren't all religious in the same way. Religious people hold a range of opinions on what is moral and what is not moral. Secular law should not be based on canon law in a secular democracy.

Granted, and this makes it complicated, religious ideas about what is moral may overlap with secular ideas about what is moral. Stealing is considered wrong by most people, secular or religious. The list of sins in the churches (temples, mosques, etc.) shouldn't be the basis of secular law.

We are shocked -- shocked!! -- that union organizing is going on in this bar!

It probably was; bars were an essential working class meeting place prior to 1920. However, prohibition's primary drive came from women who wanted to end the domestic violence and domestic poverty caused by alcoholism. (Suffrage and temperance were often partners.).

Before I accepted the idea that anti-unionism was a prime driver of prohibition, I'd want to read a strong case for that view. But again, another major drive for prohibition came from rural protestants who were not witnessing a whole lot of union organizing.