Leftwing Newspaper Gone Too Far?

[Mister Agenda]

Abuse of power is the issue, and that is what I was addressing. I don't think that should be a "social experiment". This was a very bad and dangerous message that newspaper sent.

It shouldn't have been done, but it now IS a social experiment, the only question is will we bother to try to learn anything from it.

[Brian37]

Next at ten, newspaper publishes a list of all known homosexuals, dissidents, poor tippers, people who pick their noses when no one is looking, and those who hate kittens. No reason we shouldn't know.

That about sums it up right there.

[Whateverist]

Abuse of power is the issue, and that is what I was addressing. I don't think that should be a "social experiment". This was a very bad and dangerous message that newspaper sent.

It shouldn't have been done, but it now IS a social experiment, the only question is will we bother to try to learn anything from it.

Amongst the things I'd like to learn from the experiment is whether the newspaper benefits financially from its notoriety or suffers. I would hope the latter.

[Lion IRC]

Yes. Might = right.
Right...as in the majority has the collective the right to do whatever it wants. So the context is anthropology.

Anthropology is still a very broad category. We are not talking of some sort of Hobbesian "state of nature" here, but rather of a Western civilization in the early 21st century. Your simplistic "might=right" equation is completely inadequate to describe its workings.

I'm not trying to be expansive - the reduction is deliberate. It really can be simplified in just that way.

...The majority in the United States does not have "the collective the right to do whatever it wants," and if you believe that it does, I suggest you try reading up on the laws of that country.

Yes they do.
I suggest you try reading up on the laws of that country prior to the war of independence. No parliament can pass a law that binds future parliaments.
The same mandate of the masses which ratifies a Constitution can UNratify or create a new/different Constitution.
And your quaint notions about "The Law" didnt prevent these folk from taking it into their own hands.

...You've ignored my point about the inherent protections in the Constitution of the United States against a tyranny of the majority.

The are not inherent. They are provisional. The protection of minorities has (and needs) the assent of the majority.

...I would reinforce that by stating that well established legal precedent in the U. S. also thwarts a tyranny of the majority.

Legal precedent? You do know who pays the wages of the judiciary dont you? Tax-payers/voters.

...I'd hate to think you're ignoring my point simply because it refutes your position.

You have to make a refutation before I can ignore it.

[SkyMutt]

Anthropology is still a very broad category. We are not talking of some sort of Hobbesian "state of nature" here, but rather of a Western civilization in the early 21st century. Your simplistic "might=right" equation is completely inadequate to describe its workings.

I'm not trying to be expansive - the reduction is deliberate. It really can be simplified in just that way.

Yes, simplified to such an extent that the analysis becomes completely inaccurate and irrelevant. If that is what you're aiming for, I congratulate you on your success.

...The majority in the United States does not have "the collective the right to do whatever it wants," and if you believe that it does, I suggest you try reading up on the laws of that country.

Yes they do.
I suggest you try reading up on the laws of that country prior to the war of independence. No parliament can pass a law that binds future parliaments.

Ah, I think I see the problem here. We are not talking about " the laws of that country prior to the war of independence." It may be news to you, but that war was fought precisely to separate the colonies from the nation which was (and still is) subject to those laws. They are not applicable, and invoking them is pointless.

Cite the section of the Constitution of the United States which you believe is equivalent to your statement about parliaments and we can discuss it. Until you've done so, your argument remains irrelevant.

The same mandate of the masses which ratifies a Constitution can UNratify or create a new/different Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States was not ratified by "the masses." Again, I suggest you try reading some history.

And your quaint notions about "The Law" didnt prevent these folk from taking it into their own hands.

Your condescending non sequitur is noted as yet another in an as yet unbroken string of irrelevancies: The Boston Tea Party took place long before the Constitution of the United States was written.

...You've ignored my point about the inherent protections in the Constitution of the United States against a tyranny of the majority.

The are not inherent. They are provisional. The protection of minorities has (and needs) the assent of the majority.

The protections against the tyranny of the majority were built into the structure of the Constitution of the United States. The only way to remove them would be to destroy it. This was the intent of the people who wrote the document, as can be seen by reading the Federalist Papers.

...I would reinforce that by stating that well established legal precedent in the U. S. also thwarts a tyranny of the majority.

Legal precedent? You do know who pays the wages of the judiciary dont you? Tax-payers/voters.

The judiciary in the United States exists to interpret the Constitution, not the will of the taxpayers/voters. That is what it's appointed and paid to do. There are notable cases in which the ruling of the judiciary has been in direct opposition to the will of the majority. The precedents created by such rulings become the basis for established case law, which as I said, thwarts a tyranny of the majority.

[Lion IRC]

....Cite the section of the Constitution of the United States which you believe is equivalent to your statement about parliaments and we can discuss it. Until you've done so, your argument remains irrelevant.

...The Constitution of the United States was not ratified by "the masses." Again, I suggest you try reading some history.

Here, I'll cite .

We the People of the United States...

And guess what? They werent unanimously agreed.

The Constitutional protections of minorities are very precious and ought not be taken for granted.

[SkyMutt]

....Cite the section of the Constitution of the United States which you believe is equivalent to your statement about parliaments and we can discuss it. Until you've done so, your argument remains irrelevant.

...The Constitution of the United States was not ratified by "the masses." Again, I suggest you try reading some history.

Here, I'll cite .

We the People of the United States...

And guess what? They werent unanimously agreed.

Perhaps you could take the time to explain how this is equivalent to your previous statement: "No parliament can pass a law that binds future parliaments." As it stands, it appears that you've presented yet another glaring non sequitur.

The Constitutional protections of minorities are very precious and ought not be taken for granted.

Are you trying to imply that I take those protections for granted?

[Lion IRC]

Here, I'll cite the first 7 words.

We the People of the United States...

And guess what? They werent unanimously agreed.

Perhaps you could take the time to explain how this is equivalent to your previous statement: "No parliament can pass a law that binds future parliaments." As it stands, it appears that you've presented yet another glaring non sequitur.

The US Constitution was put in place by people. It can be rendered obsolete by people.
It is actually a well-established principle of representative (parliamentary) democracy that voters cannot pass laws which are unable to be amended/rescinded.
In fact, it would be UNDEMOCRATIC if that were otherwise.

The Constitutional protections of minorities are very precious and ought not be taken for granted.

Are you trying to imply that I take those protections for granted?

Are you trying to imply that I am trying to imply that you were implying that..........

Come on SkyMutt. I say exactly what I mean. And I assume the same of you. Dont worry, you will know exactly what I'm accusing you of if ever I want to do that.

I'm actually hoping you will agree with me on that one.

Constitutional protections of minorities are very precious and ought not be taken for granted.

Agreed?

[popeyespappy]

Technically it only takes a small percentage of the US population to amend our Constitution. In fact 1468 people could legally do it if they controlled the state legislatures of the 38 least populated states. 1468 state legislatures representing less than 20% of the population of the US could amend the Constitution to make slavery legal or Evangelical Pastafarianism the official religion of the US. Legally there isn’t much the majority could do about it either. So much for majority rules…

[SkyMutt]

The US Constitution was put in place by people. It can be rendered obsolete by people.
It is actually a well-established principle of representative (parliamentary) democracy that voters cannot pass laws which are unable to be amended/rescinded.
In fact, it would be UNDEMOCRATIC if that were otherwise.

What you said was "No parliament can pass a law that binds future parliaments." The fact that it is possible to amend the Constitution of the United States does not mean that the Congress is not bound by it, quite the contrary. Congress by itself cannot amend the Constitution. Though what popeyespappy says in regard to the amendment process is technically more or less true, it is actually not easy to amend the Constitution. (Reference)

Constitutional protections of minorities are very precious and ought not be taken for granted.

Agreed?

I question why you consider it necessary to make such a statement. I have been supporting the position that the Constitution of the United States is constructed in such a way as to prevent a tyranny of the majority. This does not mean that I consider the protection of minority rights to be something that can be taken for granted, since the Constitution is not perfect, and the interpretation and enforcement of it are even less perfect. If minority rights were something that could be taken for granted, the Constitution would not be written so as to protect them from the majority.

To repeat: the prevention of a tyranny of the majority is an integral principle of the Constitution, inherent in its construction. That principle is provisional only in the sense that the Constitution itself is provisional, as any law ever written (including the Ten Commandments) is provisional.